prolly

Then you were outplayed tho.

I think the way it works in primary with 2 defence allies and no offence allies is decent. I still like offensive allies in theory but I liked the way they worked in e2025 better than the way they work here. Maybe some middle ground or best of both worlds, but off allies are maininly good for boosting one person right now and I dont think thats something the game formulas should encourage.

My hit on enforcer took all my stock cause I was at 150 turns played...

He was 400k acre and a 2m jet PS with 0 offensive ally

For what it’s worth I think restart bonuses need to go.

Regarding 1 grab vs 100 ABs

I did one grab and you called me a greifer and a suicider, so what do you call someone who does 100 ABs the ? Enlighten me

Ah yes, gerdler promoting the "I should be allowed to farm you and you shouldn't be able to retaliate" mentality again. That's not being outplayed. being outplayed would be no offensive or defensive allies and bouncing the retal.
Defensive are basically good for boosting one person too. So like I said, to balance it a little better, swap the numbers. 2 offensive, 3 defensive. offence takes a nerf, defence takes a boost, without being overpowering.

Where did you read that? I didn't read anything about farming someone and not allowing him to retaliate...

Then start really reading what he is suggesting. double defensive allies up, remove offensive allies, weaken the ability of smaller countries to respond to larger countries hitting them at all, etc etc. It's 100% about supporting farming without fear of retaliation. I mean, heaven forbid the guy he 10,20,30,50 taps might flip out and launch even 1 retal, or just go bananas on him.

Literally everything he wants, constantly, is to completely remove any element of risk from the game. So yeah, sand box netting without fear of retaliation.
heaven forbid you might need to run some defence, heaven forbid that landgrabbing someone might come with consequences, if you're a small country, tough fluff you either take the hit and like it, or wreck the entire rest of your reset to MAYBE be successful at retaliating. that's LITERALLY what he proposes nonstop

Ah, you're assuming he's suggesting what you interpret he wants, then I suggest you directly ask him so that you can stop assuming.

Drow I agree completely with your point about having to actually run defence. There is a problem - a 5 minute a day techer can easily stock enough to make defending against it near impossible.

I actually dont oppose the idea of someone spending a whole reset just to get revenge. If you want to spend 2 months on a country with the sole purpose of taking down a single player then that is their choice. Some players need to get a kick in the ass to remind them that they are not infallible or more important than other players. The situation is such that a single player can screw over a number of netting resets even if those players are acceptable defence levels. Once that player is killed, the restart bonus means they can carry on for 3 restarts and inflict significant damage. Having been on the side the half-assed suicider it certainly can be entertaining...... but the mechanics of the game are unfairly weighted towards the suicider.

specific strats CAN stock enough to get you back later, at the cost of negating their own set along the way.
Yes, the game is currently skewed in the direction of the attacker, which was why I suggested swapping offensive and defensive allies over.
The issue is that the stuff aimed at stopping suiciders is also going to make it harder for people who want to play the game legitimately, but end up with a smaller country, and then get farmed because they are a smaller country.

The other thing is, new players (if we have any/many) who are untagged aren't going to have a clue about stocking, and unless you are specifically running a dedicated strat aimed at suiciding, then you're not going to be willing for the most part, to blow a substantial chunk of stockpile for a retal. If you've been farmed though, then it's understandable that you would, as your set is already fluffed.

or, adjust the percentage on offensive alliances, so instead of getting 25% per ally from your allies to a max of double your military, make it 10-15% to a max of 50% of your military.

The first time someone of interest needs that off allies to give them a max of the old 100%. That will be another fluff and whine festival

Boltar: Probably, yeah

but, it would go a way towards redressing the balance between offence and defence.

That wont stop suiciders - many are lone wolves. Some aren't but many are so they generally won't have offence allies.

Possibly. But, it gets rid of the argument about offensive alliances being unfair ;)

I have never suggested retaliation is not supposed to be possible. I am probably one of the strongest proponents of retaliation this game has right now. I have started multiple wars long and short on 5 of the 6 servers for the right to retal and I will do so again if need be.

One of the reasons human vs human interaction is so rare on tagged servers tho is that its so easy to break anyone that you no longer have the possibility of outplaying the defender by having a stronger defence than he can break. That part of the game is no more when it comes to 1a. I could go over the reasons for this but they are many and they are not intentional. You people wanting more turns in a day is the main reason tho, with more turns there is more time for stocking and so a larger portion of a countrys resources will be bound up in stock.
In primary the top countries are 30-40m NW before starting to jump and they end up 90-120m NW, while in 1a the top countries are 60-90m NW and then jump to 700-1200m NW. This has a little to do with tag protection but its mainly due to the number of turns making it too costly to increase defence linearly.

In primary and tournament you can easily hit people and not be breakable by them, it is generally referred to as 'good grabbing', but if you want to call it 'sandbox netting' you should take it up with ironx, serpentor etc who mainly use this form of grabbing in primary.

Drow is assuming as I stated, that's how false narratives get started :-(

no Gerd, that would generally be referred to as bottom feeding. good grabbing is hitting someone close to your own NW and being able to bounce the retal.

Now you're in denial.

Got grabbed in express this set, they outran me. Fair enough. gg.

Whilst I was unable to retal, the chase made it one of the most interesting sets I've played in a while.

Imagine a 2 month long reset with that kind of dynamic. Dunno if its possible tho.

Karnage stop crying (guessing). This was argued about 6 months ago let it go

As someone who hasn't read the thread since Marshall reminded me how much land he owes me, I can't help but wonder wtf this thread is even about at this point.

So your good grab hinges entirely on the target being unable to perform one of the simplest calculation tasks we have in the game, and not use any of the very public tools to do it either?

I would call that bad grabbing honestly, if I leave it up to the target to decide if my grab is good or not.

If playing well on non-bot solo servers like primary and tournament you must have outplayed your target before hitting them, the hit without chance of (meaningful) retaliation is the reward for that.

Whoever growUP is: I don't play in SoF, never have.
Martian is fluffy though.

Gerdler: so you advocate bottomfeeding then.
and you wonder why the state of the server is so bad, when you believe the only people that should be hit are those with no possibility of being able to fight back.
And yes, I guess technically it could be a case of being outplayed, if you consider someone having access to all of the tools farming someone who doesn't, is playing purely from memory of the game 15 years ago because they've only just come back, or literally doesn't know how the game works to be "outplaying them".

OR, you're advocating that you believe that much smaller player should basically sacrifice ANY chance they had of getting what might have been a decent finish for them, in order to retaliate your attack.
So which is it? Or is it both?

KoHearts: what exactly would YOU call effectively neutering attacks/retals, which is exactly what removing all offensive allies would do?

I mean, so far, gerdler's thoughts have been:

no offensive allies, keep defensive allies.
no restart bonus
players should only bottomfeed

Are you REALLY going to tell me that that somehow magically translates into anything other than "I should be able to attack and farm people with impunity because they're smaller than me, and they shouldn't be able to retaliate?"

Oh sure, If you SAY they should be able to retaliate, then you're totally being evenhanded, whilst simultaneously working to ensure that they CANNOT do so.
what next?

take away PS bonuses?

Decrease land gained for attacking countries bigger, so that even if your target somehow manages to take the retal, they don't even get close to what they lost?

Maybe change it so you can attack countries as small as you like, but you can't attack anyone more than 10% bigger than you, seeing as how if they're bigger, you've just been outplayed, and attacking them would just be sour grapes?

Selective Clan GDI so that you can attack whoever, but they can't hit you back?

This concerns not 1a as there are bots. But in tournament and primary thats how you have to grab if its to be worth it to grab at all. You can get t10 in primary or t3(often even 1st) in tournament with all-xp. There are no public or private tools for those servers that I know of so every advantage gained is 100% about game understanding, effort, skill and perhaps the odd stochastic effect here and there - but as a wise man and world champion alpine skier once said(paraphrase); The harder I work, the luckier I seem to become.

It seems to be the players who complain about the effects of tag protection and bots that get farmed on those servers for some odd reason, yet its the same players that needs the protection in general.

I have followed the entirety of all the discussions private and public about clan-GDI and no one has suggested this as of yet. Yet again you pull some absurd idea out of nowhere, suggest that is my opinion and try to invalidate what I actually say. You do know that everyone can see through this right? No matter how many times you try it you will be the one who is known for spreading garbage and it's your opinion that will not be taken seriously because of it.

I advice you try another technique, such as inductive reasoning perhaps like I generally use.

I never advocated for anything except removing the restart bonus, I don't have enough 1a knowledge to advise nor suggest any of the other functions that experienced players are talking about tweaking, my observation is based on the few sets I have here and the restart bonus IS the elephant in the room when it comes to enabling suiciders.

Gerdler, I suggest you re read my last post.
I asked if perhaps we should just take those ideas up to "solve the problem" in a pisstaking kind of way.
I don't play primary or FFA, and I barely play alliance tbh.

however, what is constantly coming out of your mouth, is the same things that have been rolling along tiredly forever.

To Be honest though, when I DID play primary, I did alright grabbing without bottomfeeding. So there's that.

Seriously though, farming the fluff out of all the lowest countries nonstop is a bit like beating up a physically disabled person. not something to brag about

Which one, the one where you tell him what he's "really" thinking because you are a mind reader?

KoH: when one constantly and consistently advocates hamstringing offense and buffing defence, and advocating making it as difficult as possible for a small country to respond to being farmed by a much larger country, and further, advocate that such tactics should also be praised and rewarded, it isn't hard to see how someone believes the game should be played and the rules should be changed to work.

That's not mind reading, that's looking at what a player is suggesting and advocating/calling for, and adding it together.


seriously though, legitimate thoughts on changes for a moment.

tweak the bonus from having offensive allies, such that you get less from each individual ally to either the same, or a lesser total. (15% per ally and total of 50% seems reasonable)

swap the number of offensive and defensive allies, such that you get one more defensive than offensive ally. (means that you still need to run reasonable defence, without making offensive allies worthless, or grabbing efforts pointless)

lessen restart bonus, or remove it. I'm actually not completely against this, or change it so that only tags that are actively at war with another alliance can get it.

Lessen the effect of bottomfeeding. reduce further the gains for hitting and farming much smaller countries, til it's no longer viable. Farming the fluff out of smaller countries both creates suiciders (when they respond in the only way they an to being hit 10, 20, 30, 50 times), and drives new players away from the game (I mean, who wants to play when you're constantly getting farmed and wrecked by someone several times your size?)

But hey, I'm just someone returning to the same tired old inbred system which is only getting closer and closer to dead.

The other thing that needs to change, is the attitudes that create suiciders in the first place.

Primary, express, and Tourney have no offensive alliance and people do really well, I don't know what the big deal is, really.

Isn't the bonus total help from both def and off allies the same ?? 100% max, and that the attacker has an easier time at hitting 100% due to 3 allies not 2

Warster: yes.
That was my point. reduce 3 offensive allies to 2, and make it max of 50% bonus, and increase defensive allies to 3 and leave it at 100%.

KoH: independent play servers, where tbh, there shouldn't be alliances at all IMO. of any form. Solo server, solo play.

/thread