Jump to content

It is currently impossible to beige an active player


Etgfrog
 Share

Recommended Posts

Fortify currently restores the same amount of resistance as a ground attack for the same amount of map. During a war you have a total of 66 MAP, so does the opponent.

If all 66 points is put into fortify then it adds 220 resistance.

66 points of ground attack will remove 220 resistance.

64 points of navy attack will remove 224 resistance.

64 points of airstrikes will remove 192 resistance.

64 points of missile attacks will remove 200 resistance.

60 points of nukes will remove 125 resistance.

 

My recommendation is fortify will add 3 less resistance for each superiority the enemy has over them. If a simpler option is needed then fortify adding 5 instead will put it at 110 points of resistance added, which allows full navy or ground to beige the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be working as per clearly outlined in the changes, and now that the changes are live and fully implemented, I guess we can only see a tweak post wars now if the change isn't too desirable. 

 

Target may not get beiged but they do take a shit ton of damage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

This isn't a bug, it's intentional. You can avoid being beiged, but as stated, you're stuck taking damage for the full 5 days of the war, instead of it ending sooner.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a bug, it's intentional. You can avoid being beiged, but as stated, you're stuck taking damage for the full 5 days of the war, instead of it ending sooner.

 

So as long as a treasure holder is willing to take some damage, the treasure can't be stolen. Also intentional? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

So as long as a treasure holder is willing to take some damage, the treasure can't be stolen. Also intentional? 

 

Yes. It may get changed in the future, but I thought I would see how things play out first.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we can't steal treasures - that mechanic is absolutely dead at this point, just annoying management of nation colors for no reason.

 

If an entire alliance bank is withdrawn into the alliance leader's nation, it can't be looted. We can't loot anybody at all that doesn't want to be looted.

 

People like Mage or Bubblegum or Fraggle who don't care about infra are impossible to do anything against.

 

This is all completely intended?

 

Edit: I understand letting it play out a little bit, but I don't see how not having any possible way of beiging someone if they don't let you isn't just boring.

Edited by Woot
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. It may get changed in the future, but I thought I would see how things play out first.

 

Isn't that what the test server is for? >.>

☾☆

Priest of Dio

º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸

¨°º¤ø„¸ GOD EMPEROR DIO BRANDO¨°º¤ø„¸

¨°º¤ø„¸ DIO BRANDO GOD EMPEROR¨°º¤ø„¸

¨°º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

So we can't steal treasures - that mechanic is absolutely dead at this point, just annoying management of nation colors for no reason.

 

If an entire alliance bank is withdrawn into the alliance leader's nation, it can't be looted. We can't loot anybody at all that doesn't want to be looted.

 

People like Mage or Bubblegum or Fraggle who don't care about infra are impossible to do anything against.

 

This is all completely intended?

 

Edit: I understand letting it play out a little bit, but I don't see how not having any possible way of beiging someone if they don't let you isn't just boring.

 

I may change it in the future, there's a number of ways it could be done. I'm partial to whichever side has more resistance when a war expires wins anyway, and loots the other nation, etc. which would eliminate any only-fortify strategy.

 

Isn't that what the test server is for? >.>

 

The test server is for testing bugs. This is much more involved in meta-game play; i.e. seeing whether or not people will actually use Fortify exclusively and how their opponents will combat that strategy first.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to anyone who has a MODICUM of intelligence, fortify just nullified 1/2 of the name of this game. who wants to waste all that time in a raid/war that in the end gives them no benefit. the EASIEST fix to solve this is to allow the fortify option so that a weaker nation has some chance of holding out against a stronger one... but limit the fortify stacks to 3 and have them reset to 0 again every military reset so the defending nation has to start over again - Granting immunity from loss to ANY nation is just -- well, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever no matter HOW you try to justify it..

 

and the whole "impossible to test accurately on the test server" argument is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my life. I have been on there. those pople LOOK foir crap like this and exploit the HELL out of it.... if this had been put into the test server I guarantee you that most everyone within a day or so would find this FLAW and exploited the hell out of it

Edited by Clueless_noob
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we can't steal treasures - that mechanic is absolutely dead at this point, just annoying management of nation colors for no reason.

 

If an entire alliance bank is withdrawn into the alliance leader's nation, it can't be looted. We can't loot anybody at all that doesn't want to be looted.

 

People like Mage or Bubblegum or Fraggle who don't care about infra are impossible to do anything against.

 

This is all completely intended?

 

Edit: I understand letting it play out a little bit, but I don't see how not having any possible way of beiging someone if they don't let you isn't just boring.

 

I have to cut off any alliance ties and commit to being a lone wolf, I have to permanently sit in 3 defensive wars, and the vast majority of you hate me. I guess the idea of me making a little more money than the average player is a totally unreasonable trade-off...

Edited by Mageofpie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to cut off any alliance ties and commit to being a lone wolf, I have to permanently sit in 3 defensive wars, and the vast majority of you hate me. I guess the idea of me making a little more money than the average player is a totally unreasonable trade-off...

I like you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to anyone who has a MODICUM of intelligence, fortify just nullified 1/2 of the name of this game. who wants to waste all that time in a raid/war that in the end gives them no benefit. the EASIEST fix to solve this is to allow the fortify option so that a weaker nation has some chance of holding out against a stronger one... but limit the fortify stacks to 3 and have them reset to 0 again every military reset so the defending nation has to start over again - Granting immunity from loss to ANY nation is just -- well, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever no matter HOW you try to justify it..

 

and the whole "impossible to test accurately on the test server" argument is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my life. I have been on there. those pople LOOK foir crap like this and exploit the HELL out of it.... if this had been put into the test server I guarantee you that most everyone within a day or so would find this FLAW and exploited the hell out of it

 

It was put in the test server though.

 

What you're missing is that fortifying allows you to completely destroy an opponent's infra. Otherwise, it's not possible. 

 

So you've two choices, you can either fortify and lose all your infra most definitely, or not fortify, get to beige fairly quickly, limiting your infrastructure lost. Keep in mind air/ships attacks previously did not count towards a beige, now they do. Hell, in many instances, I would be happy if the opponent keeps on fortifying himself. It will cost him a lot more in infra than it would in resources!

 

I think it opens up opportunities to lay out strategies by such holding out till help can arrive, limiting your infra losses, sacrificing infra for resources, going early into beige for hitting again opportunities, etc etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may change it in the future, there's a number of ways it could be done. I'm partial to whichever side has more resistance when a war expires wins anyway, and loots the other nation, etc. which would eliminate any only-fortify strategy.

 

To clarify: this is not a way to prevent only-fortify strategies because if I'm ahead on resistance when I start to lose a war, this would allow me to switch to Fortify and beige my opponent using only resistance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was put in the test server though.

 

What you're missing is that fortifying allows you to completely destroy an opponent's infra. Otherwise, it's not possible. 

 

So you've two choices, you can either fortify and lose all your infra most definitely, or not fortify, get to beige fairly quickly, limiting your infrastructure lost. Keep in mind air/ships attacks previously did not count towards a beige, now they do. Hell, in many instances, I would be happy if the opponent keeps on fortifying himself. It will cost him a lot more in infra than it would in resources!

 

I think it opens up opportunities to lay out strategies by such holding out till help can arrive, limiting your infra losses, sacrificing infra for resources, going early into beige for hitting again opportunities, etc etc. 

 

 

Every game change creates new possible strategies. This is an inevitable side effect, not necessarily a beneficial feature. Its hard for us to ever know which "new strategies" are intended by Alex's updates and which are not, and which will become considered harmful exploits once they are used to substantial effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every game change creates new possible strategies. This is an inevitable side effect, not necessarily a beneficial feature. Its hard for us to ever know which "new strategies" are intended by Alex's updates and which are not, and which will become considered harmful exploits once they are used to substantial effect. 

 

That's true, and if a good strategy emerges from it, that's a good thing, regardless of Alex's intentions behind it. However, if it doesn't really have any real strategy going and is more of exploitative nature, then obviously that becomes a different thing. 

 

I'm not sure about Alex testing updates like this on the real server, better to think it through instead or letting it live, but fair enough, let's give it a run now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, just ended my 1st post change raid. my enemy fortified only once, and in the end, between the cash i looted off him, the cost of rebuilding the infra i destroyed, and the cost of units and mats to rebuild the military I destroyed came to over $26 million. and i really didnt do a crap ton of damage either. if you consider 2 other raiders in a cycle doing about the same damage to the poor sap who got raided you are looking at a loss per raid cycle of around $79 million... now maybe some of the biggest nations can take that kind of ding, but i cant see how ANYONE would be happy about it, and if you are not one of the top say 100 largest nations, then ya... you might as well just reroll. How is this new system "better"? how will the extra time in beige be of any use? I mean, seriously... wtf who thought of this new REALLY messed up system? I feel so sorry for just THAT guy that i don't think I will ever raid another nation again because... TBH, I wouldnt want that kind of loss on my nation :P gameplay just got REAL boring :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

limit the fortify stacks to 3 and have them reset to 0

Consecutive fortifies give diminishing returns. There should be some sort of trade-off for doing an action that does nothing.

 

While I agree with both suggestions, personally I'd go with have the Resistance granted by Fortify decay with each successive Immense Triumph (by the other nation). The decay shouldn't be enough to completely negate the strategy, but enough that just sitting there with Turtle active, is not a long term viable strategy across an entire war. Also nukes should completely eliminate any Resistance added by a single Fortify action (due to the shock to the moral of military and population).

 

Something along the lines of an addition to the war timeline saying "The fortifications crumble from the Immense Triumph and a further 5 Resistance is eliminated." or "The fortifications are destroyed from the Immense Triumph and a further 5 Resistance is lost. The nation of Blue Ridge is no longer fortified." The latter being if you've removed the last of the Resistance gained from Fortify and there is no more Fortify actions to remove.

 

Using those numbers, it would take 2 Immense Triumphs (6 MAPs or 12 hours, for Ground; 8 MAPs or 16 hours for Air/Navy) to eliminate the bonus Resistance from a single Fortify. That would still mean they could Fortify at least twice in that time, but it would be at least allow for successive wins to wear away at the bonus Resistance.

 

I'd also drop the infrastructure damage from a loss to 5%, so losing a war isn't something that should be avoided at all costs (which it pretty much currently is). 10% for each city is just insane and basically further encourages larger nations to Fortify and Turtle.

 

Something along the lines of an addition to the war timeline saying "The fortifications se

sig_cybernations.PNG.8d49a01423f488a0f1b846927f5acc7e.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most real and logical fix would be to make fortify depended on player wanting to use it to actually have some troops he/she can fortify, then having 0 everything would make it impossible to use fortify. Or just nerf the amount of resistance points fortify gives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logic for the "FORTIFY" option should be for the forces to dig in and resist. So if a player uses it then he/she should be able to increase the resistance and aggressor's casualties in proportion to the defending forces which in turn must be corresponding to the number of cities. For eg. For 1 city , max 5 barracks could be bought, which implies 15000 max soldiers could be bought. So if fortify increases resistance to 10 for 15000 soldiers then for the 3000(a supposition) soldiers the defender has per city the resistance should only increase to 2 which is 1/5th of 10 as per the 3000/15000 defending soldier vs max soldier ratio. I would also like to aggregate the resistance count based on all the forces(air force, navy, army) except nuke and missile regiments. I only used the infantry(alone) for illustration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.