7/24/2017 - Fortify & Infrastructure

[Sir Scarfalot]

2 hours ago, Kemal Ergenekon said:

This is a good update. The infinite fortify to avoid beige for sure was more of an exploit than a strategy, and made no sense. I wouldn't mind it being further weakened since, as demonstrated above, if you always fortify on time, you still can avoid beige.

No, it's not an exploit, it's a rational decision that still costs those that do it dramatically. Actually fortifying on time like I described is actually extremely difficult and requires literally perfect play for days. This is the best possible solution, going any further opens the door for permafarming, which is a considerable problem that needs to be avoided.

6 hours ago, DragonK said:

muh loot muh profit muh counters muh IRL concerns

The upshot of this rant seems to be that you want to be able to make profit off of attacks; this is actually almost exactly the opposite of my philosophy. I care not what I gain nor lose, all that matters to me is what my enemies gain. If I can keep that below 0, then I'm happy. I end up making plenty of resources by raiding inactives, but all I really want is to do damage, loot be damned. As for activity, you absolutely do need to be online multiple times per day for the invulnerability... there's just no way around that. Get a data plan on a smartphone and set alarms, and plan before you start driving any considerable distance. That's what I do, and I'm not even Aargh. Considering how proud you are of Aargh's activity/dedication/strategic acumen, that shouldn't be too difficult for you, right?

Edited July 26, 2017 by Sir Scarfalot

[Kemal Ergenekon]

3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

No, it's not an exploit, it's a rational decision that still costs those that do it dramatically. Actually fortifying on time like I described is actually extremely difficult and requires literally perfect play for days. This is the best possible solution, going any further opens the door for permafarming, which is a considerable problem that needs to be avoided.

You are entitled to your own false opinion, of course. The fortify option before the update allowed nations with zero military prevent getting looted whenever they wanted. You want to loot someone's resources? You cannot, no matter how strong you are militarily. Beiges only happened if one side was inactive, or wanted to get beiged on purpose, which usually happened after they hid their resources somewhere else. Now they still have access to the same strategy, but at least they won't be able to switch after fighting a little or lobbing a nuke, and they will have to be active enough to use all of their MAPs in time.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

It doesn't cost raiders much. Infra is cheap to replace for them. They don't really need anything but a power plant and a couple of dockyards for ships for most of the raid targets. They do lose the possibility to shit on the counter-raider via nukes and/or missiles followed by fortify spam to expire the war, but them having to choose between punishing their attacker or preserving their loot is a good change, not a bad one.

I'm not sure how logging in twice or thrice a day to hit the fortify button can be described as 'perfect play' either. Unless it is a case of 'if I don't hit fortify he'll beige me' (which won't happen if all you do is fortify from the beginning), it's not something particularly demanding of exceptional levels of activity.

[DragonK]

9 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

No, it's not an exploit, it's a rational decision that still costs those that do it dramatically. Actually fortifying on time like I described is actually extremely difficult and requires literally perfect play for days. This is the best possible solution, going any further opens the door for permafarming, which is a considerable problem that needs to be avoided.

The upshot of this rant seems to be that you want to be able to make profit off of attacks; this is actually almost exactly the opposite of my philosophy. I care not what I gain nor lose, all that matters to me is what my enemies gain. If I can keep that below 0, then I'm happy. I end up making plenty of resources by raiding inactives, but all I really want is to do damage, loot be damned. As for activity, you absolutely do need to be online multiple times per day for the invulnerability... there's just no way around that. Get a data plan on a smartphone and set alarms, and plan before you start driving any considerable distance. That's what I do, and I'm not even Aargh. Considering how proud you are of Aargh's activity/dedication/strategic acumen, that shouldn't be too difficult for you, right?

I have to get 8 hours of sleep. Otherwise I can't function normally. I can sleep as low as 4 hours, but nor on regular basis. I need my sleep. So that's 8 hours of inactivity.

I work for at least 8 hours, and I can get fired if I get caught on phone, I can do it in my free time, but I don't have enough free time at work as it is. So effectively, 8 more hours that I can't be online.

So in grand total 8 hours of being online daily, and they end 2 hours before the day change.

So yeah even tough I can't do double buys or be active more than 1/3rd of time daily I'm still active enogh to win wars that I can.

5 hours ago, Kemal Ergenekon said:

You are entitled to your own false opinion, of course. The fortify option before the update allowed nations with zero military prevent getting looted whenever they wanted. You want to loot someone's resources? You cannot, no matter how strong you are militarily. Beiges only happened if one side was inactive, or wanted to get beiged on purpose, which usually happened after they hid their resources somewhere else. Now they still have access to the same strategy, but at least they won't be able to switch after fighting a little or lobbing a nuke, and they will have to be active enough to use all of their MAPs in time.

True. Altough it was possible to beige actives, but it required serious strategy. The key was to lure them to fight back. I did it more than once and beiged 2 Mensa's counters in process. And yeah I exploited the hell out of letting myself get beiged so I could raid more lucrative targets in peace. Again it was strategizing, planning and adapting to situations. Fluid as the sea. Now all that gameplay styles are either closed or sigificantly harder to play. That wouldn't be a problem in itself if the update introduced a new, DIFFERENT, model of gameplay, but all it did was enforce the mainstream even further. However weird it sounds the "buggs Arrgh exploited" were bringing more balance to the game than the updates that fixed them.

[DragonK]

3 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

It doesn't cost raiders much. Infra is cheap to replace for them. They don't really need anything but a power plant and a couple of dockyards for ships for most of the raid targets. They do lose the possibility to shit on the counter-raider via nukes and/or missiles followed by fortify spam to expire the war, but them having to choose between punishing their attacker or preserving their loot is a good change, not a bad one.

I'm not sure how logging in twice or thrice a day to hit the fortify button can be described as 'perfect play' either. Unless it is a case of 'if I don't hit fortify he'll beige me' (which won't happen if all you do is fortify from the beginning), it's not something particularly demanding of exceptional levels of activity.

Unless you have 3 MAPs, you're at work, have 28 resitance left, and your opponent has 7 MAPs, and infinitevely more ships than you do. All he has to do is log in before you do and get 2 navals in. So yeah that situation requires you to be more active than your opposition. Ofc, there can be instances where you have 7 MAPs, your opponent is sitting on 11 MAPs and you have 42 or less resitance. And yeah those situations are quite common. I beiged plently of people and got bieged myself by plently of people for overestimating how much is 42 resistance with a patient opponent. But you being in Pantheon wouldn't know that would you, sitting in safety and probably hitting VM button whenever there is war dawning (This last part is merly a speculation and assumption based on your AA displayed on forums, I don't know if your'e stereotipical Pantheon member or not, and honestly I don't care, either way you lack experience that average Arrgh raider has with wars)

[Shiho Nishizumi]

13 hours ago, DragonK said:

Unless you have 3 MAPs, you're at work, have 28 resitance left, and your opponent has 7 MAPs, and infinitevely more ships than you do. All he has to do is log in before you do and get 2 navals in. So yeah that situation requires you to be more active than your opposition. Ofc, there can be instances where you have 7 MAPs, your opponent is sitting on 11 MAPs and you have 42 or less resitance. And yeah those situations are quite common. I beiged plently of people and got bieged myself by plently of people for overestimating how much is 42 resistance with a patient opponent. But you being in Pantheon wouldn't know that would you, sitting in safety and probably hitting VM button whenever there is war dawning (This last part is merly a speculation and assumption based on your AA displayed on forums, I don't know if your'e stereotipical Pantheon member or not, and honestly I don't care, either way you lack experience that average Arrgh raider has with wars)

The first situation is literally impossible. That would be after 18 Naval Immenses in, and currently you can only do at most 16 plus one ground should the stars align. Of course, I'm assuming that all you would do is hit the Fortify button to protect whatever you've stolen over trying to fight back (since that'll be the current meta) ; let's be real here, you won't beat anyone that's somewhat competent at counter-raiding, simply because competent people will come in with a downdeclare and militarize back, and you won't be able to keep up with their numbers because of your lower population. All they need to have over you is complete air superiority and naval superiority (read as, over ten boats). You can't be too militarized either because in that case you'd expose yourself to bigger nations that can shit on you even harder.

For the record, yes, I've been in those situations quite often. However, those happened because both sides slugged it out and it came down to whomever hit the attack button first after getting the MAP's/update. Anyone that spammed fortify against me from the beginning would never get beiged, and the same way around when I did it to them (something I [and everyone else involved] stopped doing fairly quickly because in a global war, a beige is a godsent). Anywho, that 'war experience' you so much brag about isn't worth dogshit. Hitting inactives will teach you little. I know that because I also raided people back when I was a smaller nation. Attacking inactives/noobs is a lot like sealclubbing in War Thunder/ World of X, as a matter of fact. You get some fancy stats, but the second you jump to the next league you get eaten alive.

I won't deny that there are people in Arrgh who know their shit when it comes down to warfare ; however, your assertion (which was a general one) is laughable at best, and wholly delusional at worst. Mainly because at this point, anyone that was active (as in, actively fought instead of taking it to the face time and again) in the last global war has more meaningful experience at warring than your average Arrgh raider, simply because they were under, and went up against, an organized force, as opposed to Arrgh that goes after easy targets and then waits for the imminent counter raid that may vary in shape and form (best case you get someone dumb that you can play like a fiddle, worst case you get triple downdeclared and have to take it to the face or ask for peace). You shouldn't take that as an insult, by the way. Minimizing risks and maximizing profits is what raiding is about, after all.

You can still keep your loot, but you lose the possibility to fight back. Since by your own admission, the main point of raiding was to profit from it, hitting back at your attacker is a 2nd priority, and thus can be gladly sacrificed over keeping your stuff safe. Having to decide one over the other instead of going 'why not both?' is a healthy change.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Shiho Nishizumi

[ShiningLioness]

So you spring a major update on us without warning (meaning that when I sold 40m worth of stock the day before I put myself at a massive disadvantage), then *after* everyone spends hours fixing their cities you release the option to bulk import/ export, and then *after* everyone my size buys infra to try and compensate for the update changes you decrease the price of infra. I didn't say anything til now cos I know admins have it rough, but........ lol......

[ForgotPants]

58 minutes ago, ShiningLioness said:

So you spring a major update on us without warning (meaning that when I sold 40m worth of stock the day before I put myself at a massive disadvantage), then *after* everyone spends hours fixing their cities you release the option to bulk import/ export, and then *after* everyone my size buys infra to try and compensate for the update changes you decrease the price of infra. I didn't say anything til now cos I know admins have it rough, but........ lol......

It's all about targeting the right audience and pushing their buttons. You sir, had all your buttons pressed and the presser of said buttons enjoyed it very much.

[ShiningLioness]

7 minutes ago, ForgotPants said:

It's all about targeting the right audience and pushing their buttons. You sir, had all your buttons pressed and the presser of said buttons enjoyed it very much.

"Sir"? Please: it's ma'am.

And I figured out admin was trolling us a long time ago.

[ForgotPants]

3 minutes ago, ShiningLioness said:

"Sir"? Please: it's ma'am.

Please accept my apologies! I meant no disrespect.

Also, totally agree with the trolling part! Bet you had a good laugh out of it

[DragonK]

20 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

The first situation is literally impossible. That would be after 18 Naval Immenses in, and currently you can only do at most 16 plus one ground should the stars align. Of course, I'm assuming that all you would do is hit the Fortify button to protect whatever you've stolen over trying to fight back (since that'll be the current meta) ; let's be real here, you won't beat anyone that's somewhat competent at counter-raiding, simply because competent people will come in with a downdeclare and militarize back, and you won't be able to keep up with their numbers because of your lower population. All they need to have over you is complete air superiority and naval superiority (read as, over ten boats). You can't be too militarized either because in that case you'd expose yourself to bigger nations that can shit on you even harder.

For the record, yes, I've been in those situations quite often. However, those happened because both sides slugged it out and it came down to whomever hit the attack button first after getting the MAP's/update. Anyone that spammed fortify against me from the beginning would never get beiged, and the same way around when I did it to them (something I [and everyone else involved] stopped doing fairly quickly because in a global war, a beige is a godsent). Anywho, that 'war experience' you so much brag about isn't worth dogshit. Hitting inactives will teach you little. I know that because I also raided people back when I was a smaller nation. Attacking inactives/noobs is a lot like sealclubbing in War Thunder/ World of X, as a matter of fact. You get some fancy stats, but the second you jump to the next league you get eaten alive.

I won't deny that there are people in Arrgh who know their shit when it comes down to warfare ; however, your assertion (which was a general one) is laughable at best, and wholly delusional at worst. Mainly because at this point, anyone that was active (as in, actively fought instead of taking it to the face time and again) in the last global war has more meaningful experience at warring than your average Arrgh raider, simply because they were under, and went up against, an organized force, as opposed to Arrgh that goes after easy targets and then waits for the imminent counter raid that may vary in shape and form (best case you get someone dumb that you can play like a fiddle, worst case you get triple downdeclared and have to take it to the face or ask for peace). You shouldn't take that as an insult, by the way. Minimizing risks and maximizing profits is what raiding is about, after all.

You can still keep your loot, but you lose the possibility to fight back. Since by your own admission, the main point of raiding was to profit from it, hitting back at your attacker is a 2nd priority, and thus can be gladly sacrificed over keeping your stuff safe. Having to decide one over the other instead of going 'why not both?' is a healthy change.

Alright, point by point:

First situation is qutie possible, not everyone just spamms fortify, lot of us try to hit back too, so first situation can occur as soon as 21 turns in ( your opponent oppened with airstike to halve your tanks and then did 4 navals in hopes of destroying your improvments while blockading you, 6 starting MAPs + 14 turns give you just enough maps for 4 navals and 1 airstike, and assuming they were all immense you're at 28 resitance, while you did all ground attacks, 8 of them stealing some money and using it to build more ground. By the time you realize you should have fortifed instead of doing 8th attack you're in tight spot where you race who'll foritfy first. That is the current meta, if idiot attacking you doesn't have ground, use ground, if he doesn't have air use air, and if he doesn't have naval use naval. Fortify is for when you can't hit back or are lower on resitance than your opponent. That's how we do shit in Arrgh, but I guess you just fortified your way out of global without hitting back?

First part, true, but what' s fun in not hitting back when you can? I'd die of boredom just hitting fortify. Also true, beige is tactical advantage. Well, there are all sorts of inactives and noobs. Yes there are easy picks, but they tend to get overraided, you have to race to take his def slots as soon as he's out of beige, his loot tends to be shit and any decent alliance has him as an applicant if not kicked out yet. Then there are more lucrative and risky inactives and noobs, the kind that go inactive then get back the minute you hit them and do double buy at next update, and the sort of noobs that don't know war well but their alliances fund them well to buy army and wreck our low army brigades. I don't get the WT/WoT reffrence, but I think you meant smurfing? True it's easy money there, but once you jump to next tier, you get destoryed not casue you're bad, but casue your aircrafts/tanks don't have any mods, it takes literal months just to reasearh repair kit, and then next year you're lucky if you get the fire estingisher, while most of enemys in that tier are people who are in same situation for the next tier so they play that tier to grind money. Vicious game.

Yes/No. Arrgh deals with "organized" counters, we do get decalred on by alliances that have strong membership in our range, but thanks to massive counters by everyone ever in game we feel less brunt of it since we do get our slots taken as soon as they are available. And this part is mainly for myself, but I do enjoy winning hard wars, and I recked more than one competent coutner on me, simply by letting them get too comfortable with 10 ships that you assumed were safe, keep them on low-ish resitance while they focus all their maps on aircrafts that bomb my worthless infra, and then get 20 mil by beiging some inactive from one of major alliances with good wc/alliance loot, rebuild my citys to 700ish infra, and then utilize my 3 docks per city by buying 30 ships, hours after update when most of american players are sleeping and absolutely wrecking them. And true profit is the goal of raids, but being and old, proud warrior, I do enjoy war, and I don't shy away from spending my money on luxury called winning wars. I blew most of my wc and profits fighting uphill battles, and it was worth every mil i spent on it. And during the global I acted as a mercenary for The Inqusition, I fought Mensa mainly, and I'd done much more damage if I wasn't countered by Vanek twice or trice, those downdeclares got me good. Also I fought t$ and TKR a bit, and had relevent role in spearheading and assault agaisnt Woot wich got him down for a while. Overall I joined late and I took me time to get accostumed to strategys being utilliezed on global scale, but I was one hell of a meatshield if I say so myself. Oh and there was that whole part where CS started attacking me for utillizing their inactives better than they, or even t$ could. Apparently beiging their inactive while stopping a member of opposing side to do the same and using all those resources for war effort against their enemy instead of that enemy using their own resources agaisnt them is bad? But yeah in general our tactics are best suited for raiding and minimizing the damages while maximazing the profits, aye, but also sheer amount of wars and experience is not only trait that we have, it's adaptivity, in general our members adapt to changes and situations faster than others, esspecially us older ones who's been through good and bad times, and trough all them updates. The reason we excel is precisly our steadfast will and ability to adapt.

Meh, why not both

True it forces me to choose and that's one issue I have with it. But mostly it's about closing yet another venue us at Arrgh have adapted as our own. And now we'll lose players again, we'll get bucn of new green ones, and we'll have to adapt to new mehanics yet again. All is well, but I'm getting really tired of it all, was on verge of quitting the game myself more than once, and even went VM for a month. And now admin saw fit to destroy us yet again, by doing exactly what those crybabys cried him to do, but no this is not about us at all and he pretends like he came with this idea himself with his wast knolwegde of how his own game works and he's 100% unbiased. This was, venomus sarcazm in case you, the reader of this long ass essay of mine, have trouble discerning such things. And in case the reader is Shiho, meh, like your arguments, but at this point I'm jsut arguing for the sake of argument, I agree with most of your points, and hope you do the same, and hope for your next reply

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shiho Nishizumi]

2 hours ago, DragonK said:

Alright, point by point:

First situation is qutie possible, not everyone just spamms fortify, lot of us try to hit back too, so first situation can occur as soon as 21 turns in ( your opponent oppened with airstike to halve your tanks and then did 4 navals in hopes of destroying your improvments while blockading you, 6 starting MAPs + 14 turns give you just enough maps for 4 navals and 1 airstike, and assuming they were all immense you're at 28 resitance, while you did all ground attacks, 8 of them stealing some money and using it to build more ground. By the time you realize you should have fortifed instead of doing 8th attack you're in tight spot where you race who'll foritfy first. That is the current meta, if idiot attacking you doesn't have ground, use ground, if he doesn't have air use air, and if he doesn't have naval use naval. Fortify is for when you can't hit back or are lower on resitance than your opponent. That's how we do shit in Arrgh, but I guess you just fortified your way out of global without hitting back?

First part, true, but what' s fun in not hitting back when you can? I'd die of boredom just hitting fortify. Also true, beige is tactical advantage. Well, there are all sorts of inactives and noobs. Yes there are easy picks, but they tend to get overraided, you have to race to take his def slots as soon as he's out of beige, his loot tends to be shit and any decent alliance has him as an applicant if not kicked out yet. Then there are more lucrative and risky inactives and noobs, the kind that go inactive then get back the minute you hit them and do double buy at next update, and the sort of noobs that don't know war well but their alliances fund them well to buy army and wreck our low army brigades. I don't get the WT/WoT reffrence, but I think you meant smurfing? True it's easy money there, but once you jump to next tier, you get destoryed not casue you're bad, but casue your aircrafts/tanks don't have any mods, it takes literal months just to reasearh repair kit, and then next year you're lucky if you get the fire estingisher, while most of enemys in that tier are people who are in same situation for the next tier so they play that tier to grind money. Vicious game.

Yes/No. Arrgh deals with "organized" counters, we do get decalred on by alliances that have strong membership in our range, but thanks to massive counters by everyone ever in game we feel less brunt of it since we do get our slots taken as soon as they are available. And this part is mainly for myself, but I do enjoy winning hard wars, and I recked more than one competent coutner on me, simply by letting them get too comfortable with 10 ships that you assumed were safe, keep them on low-ish resitance while they focus all their maps on aircrafts that bomb my worthless infra, and then get 20 mil by beiging some inactive from one of major alliances with good wc/alliance loot, rebuild my citys to 700ish infra, and then utilize my 3 docks per city by buying 30 ships, hours after update when most of american players are sleeping and absolutely wrecking them. And true profit is the goal of raids, but being and old, proud warrior, I do enjoy war, and I don't shy away from spending my money on luxury called winning wars. I blew most of my wc and profits fighting uphill battles, and it was worth every mil i spent on it. And during the global I acted as a mercenary for The Inqusition, I fought Mensa mainly, and I'd done much more damage if I wasn't countered by Vanek twice or trice, those downdeclares got me good. Also I fought t$ and TKR a bit, and had relevent role in spearheading and assault agaisnt Woot wich got him down for a while. Overall I joined late and I took me time to get accostumed to strategys being utilliezed on global scale, but I was one hell of a meatshield if I say so myself. Oh and there was that whole part where CS started attacking me for utillizing their inactives better than they, or even t$ could. Apparently beiging their inactive while stopping a member of opposing side to do the same and using all those resources for war effort against their enemy instead of that enemy using their own resources agaisnt them is bad? But yeah in general our tactics are best suited for raiding and minimizing the damages while maximazing the profits, aye, but also sheer amount of wars and experience is not only trait that we have, it's adaptivity, in general our members adapt to changes and situations faster than others, esspecially us older ones who's been through good and bad times, and trough all them updates. The reason we excel is precisly our steadfast will and ability to adapt.

Meh, why not both

True it forces me to choose and that's one issue I have with it. But mostly it's about closing yet another venue us at Arrgh have adapted as our own. And now we'll lose players again, we'll get bucn of new green ones, and we'll have to adapt to new mehanics yet again. All is well, but I'm getting really tired of it all, was on verge of quitting the game myself more than once, and even went VM for a month. And now admin saw fit to destroy us yet again, by doing exactly what those crybabys cried him to do, but no this is not about us at all and he pretends like he came with this idea himself with his wast knolwegde of how his own game works and he's 100% unbiased. This was, venomus sarcazm in case you, the reader of this long ass essay of mine, have trouble discerning such things. And in case the reader is Shiho, meh, like your arguments, but at this point I'm jsut arguing for the sake of argument, I agree with most of your points, and hope you do the same, and hope for your next reply

1st) : You described the guy very well: 'Idiot'. Someone that isn't an idiot wouldn't have an obvious weakness that you can exploit. Granted, it is true that sometimes you need to sacrifice a certain aspect of your army to get in range, and that's fine. However, that can be mitigated by a double buy, particularly for land which is rather easy to build back. The strat you said the guy used is mostly nonsensical (Air opening makes sense, and a naval to prevent flow of resources also makes sense; to keep spamming navals in hopes to destroy imp's which is reliant on RNG is absurd), and it pains me that someone would think of that as a good idea.. Priority is always on zero'ing the opposition's military. If I were to lack sufficient ground to take on you head-on I'd instead resort to air striking your ground to death, while getting my own ground in batches. As for your comment on me, I did actually spam fortify against my first 3 foes last war (out of, I think, the 40+ I had) after I lost the initial engagements to avoid beige, but then I realized that all it did was allow them to destroy more of my infra and mil since I kept regenerating resistance that they could then lower without beiging me, so I stopped using fortify for the most part after that, except for when I wished to time beiges so they'd stack. As a matter of fact, I baited a few people into beiging me; they would have otherwise just sat on me with a blockade and left me to die to the next wave.

To finalize, ''Fortify is for when you can't hit back(...)''  . This aspect has not changed with the update.  ''(...) or are lower on resitance than your opponent.'' . This aspect has changed, but it depends on what you want to use it for. Fortify won't work anymore if you lost the counter-engagement and don't want to be beiged. It will still serve it's purpose to buy you time for reinforcements to come in (although to be quite frank, this utility is not one I have seen being used a lot, in spite of it being it's intended use).

2nd) : You can attempt to hit back. You just won't be unable to hit the safe button and avoid defeat should it fail. Countering is now an inherently riskier, yet still more rewarding alternative to just playing it safe, as opposed to previously in where it was more rewarding but posed little risk compared to just fortifying. Yeah I remember my days of setting an alarm to raid a target and then rage because someone got a slot before I did in spite of me hitting the 'Declare War' button pretty much the second the target unbeiged lol. I'm not sure how much has raiding changed since I last did it; however, it proved to be pretty lucrative (and fun) to me whilst I did it. And that was with me not going after the better-yet-alliance protected targets.

As for the reference, no. Smurfs usually just buy back to high tiers and evade lowers entirely. Dedicated seal clubbers seem to always just stagnate at the lower tiers. You get wrecked because you get used to a more forgiving, less-demanding meta on the lower tiers, one in which people for the large part don't know how to play properly (which makes sense, it's low tiers after all), and to be frank, there's a lot of cheese in the higher tiers that simply doesn't exist in the lowers. That's another contributing factor. The stockness of your vehicle of course impacts it's capability, but I've seen people suck balls on vehicles they have 100's of games in. By that point the vehicle already has it's modules researched.

3rd) : That's what they get for being overconfident :v. I've also seen people use credits they had saved up to make a comeback and succeed (namely, I've first seen Roz do it and didn't hesitate to adopt it myself for the last war). Good thing that you don't hesitate to burn some of that loot though. I've met people that raided just to hoard and I just shook my head. I'm not surprised that you feel the mechanic changes first and adapt sooner to them, due to your constant exposure to war. However, my main concern with warfare comes down to alliance vs alliance warfare, as opposed to individual wars. The former which I can't see Arrgh needing to concern itself with all that much.

4th) : I think that it will come to an 'agree to disagree' kind of situation. You (both individual and plural) see having to decide as bad, I/we think that having to decide is a good change. At any rate, I do agree that he's a bit... easily influenced, to say the least.

[Mayor]

On 7/24/2017 at 10:24 AM, Alex said:

This update is not related to Arrgh specifically whatsoever. I am continuously accused each update of "attacking Arrgh" or "singling out Arrgh" as if I have some sort of disdain for that group of players. The point I made was that not only do I not hold any sort of disdain for Arrgh, I really have no opinion whatsoever.

When I'm making updates, the first question I ask myself is certainly not "How will this help/hurt Arrgh?"

That should be your first question you ask yourself though when making game changes. Even though you may not love Arrgh near enough, I personally, like this change. I hated how people would always fortify to stop beige.

[Dubayoo]

Tbh, the real problem with this update is the combination with the previous update.

Before, some players would run no power plants on purpose while maximizing raw materials to sell those resources on the market.  They would be miserable raiding targets since there was no cash to be had and you couldn't loot their warchests since they'd fortify nonstop. 

Now, the reduction in raw material production per mine combined with this really hammers those players.  They can neither mass produce raw materials nor defend themselves against raiders.

That said, this update does kill raiders not because of exposing them to fortification limits (since their targets won't be able to fortify out either), but because when they're looted, their bank takes a hit.  Yes, banks can be hidden in other alliances, but the problem deals with recruiting new players who aren't up to speed.  They won't communicate when they're about to be beiged so the alliance bank can be transferred.  In turn, less resources will be available on hand.  The reduction in infrastructure costs doesn't account for the reduction of liquidity.

In turn, recruiting reliable newcomers will become difficult.  This will reduce the amount of conflict in the world and make the game even more stagnant. 

[Dubayoo]

5 hours ago, Mayor said:

That should be your first question you ask yourself though when making game changes. Even though you may not love Arrgh near enough, I personally, like this change. I hated how people would always fortify to stop beige.

I mean it's a trade-off.  You sacrifice infrastructure to avoid being looted.  That's realistic as well since it's how war really works.  You take civilian facilities and transform them into walls and bunkers to avoid getting destroyed. 

The real problem is units don't destroy infrastructure fast enough, and you should be prohibited from fortifying once you hit zero infrastructure.  Any attack done that brings you to zero infrastructure could create a timer, for instance, that prohibits you from fortifying for 12 hours even if you can still build infrastructure at that point.. Improvements should also be automatically destroyed when the infrastructure to support them is destroyed.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Dubayoo

[DragonK]

On 28. 07. 2017. at 3:08 AM, Shiho Nishizumi said:

1st) : You described the guy very well: 'Idiot'. Someone that isn't an idiot wouldn't have an obvious weakness that you can exploit. Granted, it is true that sometimes you need to sacrifice a certain aspect of your army to get in range, and that's fine. However, that can be mitigated by a double buy, particularly for land which is rather easy to build back. The strat you said the guy used is mostly nonsensical (Air opening makes sense, and a naval to prevent flow of resources also makes sense; to keep spamming navals in hopes to destroy imp's which is reliant on RNG is absurd), and it pains me that someone would think of that as a good idea.. Priority is always on zero'ing the opposition's military. If I were to lack sufficient ground to take on you head-on I'd instead resort to air striking your ground to death, while getting my own ground in batches. As for your comment on me, I did actually spam fortify against my first 3 foes last war (out of, I think, the 40+ I had) after I lost the initial engagements to avoid beige, but then I realized that all it did was allow them to destroy more of my infra and mil since I kept regenerating resistance that they could then lower without beiging me, so I stopped using fortify for the most part after that, except for when I wished to time beiges so they'd stack. As a matter of fact, I baited a few people into beiging me; they would have otherwise just sat on me with a blockade and left me to die to the next wave.

To finalize, ''Fortify is for when you can't hit back(...)''  . This aspect has not changed with the update.  ''(...) or are lower on resitance than your opponent.'' . This aspect has changed, but it depends on what you want to use it for. Fortify won't work anymore if you lost the counter-engagement and don't want to be beiged. It will still serve it's purpose to buy you time for reinforcements to come in (although to be quite frank, this utility is not one I have seen being used a lot, in spite of it being it's intended use).

2nd) : You can attempt to hit back. You just won't be unable to hit the safe button and avoid defeat should it fail. Countering is now an inherently riskier, yet still more rewarding alternative to just playing it safe, as opposed to previously in where it was more rewarding but posed little risk compared to just fortifying. Yeah I remember my days of setting an alarm to raid a target and then rage because someone got a slot before I did in spite of me hitting the 'Declare War' button pretty much the second the target unbeiged lol. I'm not sure how much has raiding changed since I last did it; however, it proved to be pretty lucrative (and fun) to me whilst I did it. And that was with me not going after the better-yet-alliance protected targets.

As for the reference, no. Smurfs usually just buy back to high tiers and evade lowers entirely. Dedicated seal clubbers seem to always just stagnate at the lower tiers. You get wrecked because you get used to a more forgiving, less-demanding meta on the lower tiers, one in which people for the large part don't know how to play properly (which makes sense, it's low tiers after all), and to be frank, there's a lot of cheese in the higher tiers that simply doesn't exist in the lowers. That's another contributing factor. The stockness of your vehicle of course impacts it's capability, but I've seen people suck balls on vehicles they have 100's of games in. By that point the vehicle already has it's modules researched.

3rd) : That's what they get for being overconfident :v. I've also seen people use credits they had saved up to make a comeback and succeed (namely, I've first seen Roz do it and didn't hesitate to adopt it myself for the last war). Good thing that you don't hesitate to burn some of that loot though. I've met people that raided just to hoard and I just shook my head. I'm not surprised that you feel the mechanic changes first and adapt sooner to them, due to your constant exposure to war. However, my main concern with warfare comes down to alliance vs alliance warfare, as opposed to individual wars. The former which I can't see Arrgh needing to concern itself with all that much.

4th) : I think that it will come to an 'agree to disagree' kind of situation. You (both individual and plural) see having to decide as bad, I/we think that having to decide is a good change. At any rate, I do agree that he's a bit... easily influenced, to say the least.

1) Not really, if he can double buy everything and outnumber me in all 3 categorys then he can't downdeclare on me due to sheer number of citys and/or infra. If he can outnumber me via double buy and decale on me then his improvments can't sustain more than 1 or 2 types of military, unless he has no econ buildings whatsoever, in wich case he's a riader himself, and he's be better of joining Arrgh, wich they oftem do.

Up to you, I lose less if I keep spamming fortify, as does my alliance, but I still like to sneak a few suprise attacks here and then just to piss them off and show them that me, and Arrgh, are not to be messed with. Sure, they dominate the majority of war, sure the wars expie, but in temrs of infra/improvment damange (calculated in $) is roughly eqaul. They destroy hundrends of my 200-600 infra citys, and I destroy 100 of their 1500-2000 infra citys. And best win is when I get tons of money from my ianctive raids, rebuild my infra fully, recruit a strong navy, break trough their puny blockades on me, do 3 immense naval on each one of them, and stash my hard earned money and resource leftovers into alliance bank.

2) It's shit now. I used to get an average 20mil per war, and now i'm happy if I get 5mil. Back then I had to raid to avoid being billlocked due to high army to infa ration, now I have to raid due to no army to no infra status. Sheepy outdid himself with each update and ruined a fun raiding experience that this game gave to players who enjoed such.

Ah I see what you mean. I don't seal clubb, I'm just stuck on high end of tier 4 vehicles in both air and ground. I do smurf occaxionally due to fact that we get new players and we simply have to adjust for their br, and yeah the meta in low tier sucks, esspecially when I get bomb run and fighters que on me, and my escort is too busy kamikazing into heavy tanks in attepmt to scratch their paint instead of protecting me so I could drop my payload on them. I hate lower tier games, simply casue peopel there don't know how to play. And either way the game ends up being carried by me and my friend, we iether win csasue him and me do everything for the team or we lose casue the enemy has better players and our team is not good enaough to even be meatshields for us

3) I see your point. Fix the alliance v alliance mehanics then, but leave a viable method for player v player raids. Give us raiders a way to fight back, that won't affect the global wars as much as fortify, but still gives us a way to make profit with sacfrifices that we're willing to make for such a casue. And yeah i used creds few times, but they not worth it. I prefere to use what I call raiding reserves.Whenever I'm at war, be it defensive or offensive, I keep 2 quality raid targets on hand, at less than 10 resitance so that when I need soem quick cash and resources I simply beige them. That method ended up suiting my gameplay perfectly and it's returns, altough riskier than cred buys, were more effecient in terms of profits.

4) I don't mind this udpate being good for you. I mind  almsot every update since I came here being either neutral or bad for me and my alliance. This needs to stop. I don't care about other alliances and their wellbeing, when it hurts my alliance cosntantly. Noiw I demand an update that will be beneficail to my alliance the msot, and I don't care how it impacts the rest of the game. And by all things right and holy, we at least deserve such an update, after all the bad ones we had to suffer, after all the good peopel we lost due to those same udpates.

 

 

[DragonK]

22 hours ago, Mayor said:

That should be your first question you ask yourself though when making game changes. Even though you may not love Arrgh near enough, I personally, like this change. I hated how people would always fortify to stop beige.

The "problem" of peopel outfortifying yo ustill remains, while us raiders have harder tiems keeping aflaot. I don't see how you could like this update for thsoe reasons.

16 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

I mean it's a trade-off.  You sacrifice infrastructure to avoid being looted.  That's realistic as well since it's how war really works.  You take civilian facilities and transform them into walls and bunkers to avoid getting destroyed. 

The real problem is units don't destroy infrastructure fast enough, and you should be prohibited from fortifying once you hit zero infrastructure.  Any attack done that brings you to zero infrastructure could create a timer, for instance, that prohibits you from fortifying for 12 hours even if you can still build infrastructure at that point.. Improvements should also be automatically destroyed when the infrastructure to support them is destroyed.

I once supported this, even tough back then I had 40 improvments over 600 infra. But not anymore, we're !@#$ up enough as it is.

[Buck Turgidson]

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎29 at 10:46 AM, DragonK said:

4) I don't mind this udpate being good for you. I mind  almsot every update since I came here being either neutral or bad for me and my alliance. This needs to stop. I don't care about other alliances and their wellbeing, when it hurts my alliance cosntantly. Noiw I demand an update that will be beneficail to my alliance the msot, and I don't care how it impacts the rest of the game. And by all things right and holy, we at least deserve such an update, after all the bad ones we had to suffer, after all the good peopel we lost due to those same udpates.

 

 

It is just a change. And funny enough, nothing changes. The margins are slimmer now, which lulls many into a sense of security. True pirates...uh...find a way.