Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Active topics Unanswered topics
The forums have moved!
Click here to use the new forums. Enjoy!
Search options (Page 9 of 127)
HappyJedi wrote:Same struggle since the beginning of time. Someone will always complain. You will make one person happy but then someone else will complain. It's just a never-ending cycle of complaining about everything. Someone will always be unhappy.
Like KT said on the previous page, mods did not introduce this morale thing. Mods cannot make it disappear. What they are doing is trying to make it work for the better of the game as a whole. This current change did not work out so good, try again next round and maybe it will be better. Maybe next round will be worse. You guys who are complaining so much are leaving anyway, so what does it matter to you anymore?
I remember when players would beg and beg for a simple change and mods would have to wait weeks for Stefan to log in and ignore them. It took forever to get anything done at all, players complained. Now, developers are actively making changes to *hopefully* improve the game for the players and people are still complaining. This war is impossible to win.
You're my favorite
Lone Tiger wrote:LG wrote:Who signed up for the hc round with no moral?
None of you plugs who are bitching
Last HC round not enough people signed up, but also most of the players were inactive. If we could find a way to get everyone active in an hc round, I think that would be fun. But I'm not sure how to get that to happen. With the small player base we have, we need almost everyone to sign up and be active. And a lot of players don't seem to be interested in hc.
They complain about not having enough morale to accomplish anything, complain about fighting people being difficult, and then don't want to play HC rounds. People don't know what they want 
I've made it clear from the start that my personal opinion is that we're better off without players that have a bad attitude (if you look back they tend to be the same players that complained about the old system). I put a lot of work into this, take the time to research and post explanations of how to work with the new system, and each time am ignored. I do try to check my attitude, but the frustration has set in 
Sidenote...can't express how amusing it is to have players complain about what they're losing...only to pop it into spreadsheets and find out that they're exaggerating ridiculously. My favorite was a family complaining it was costing 50% morale for each attack it's attacker was doing...when it was costing them 9% and he just wanted to complain.
Processor VX wrote:Undeath wrote:I think it's funny that people still pop bank with the new system
We're working on a compensation so that pop banking is a decent option, but the way it stands having a pop banker in your family ruins your morale. Unless you're either operating under the idea that you're going defensive (completely valid method of gameplay, not sure why people hate it) or you go into it planning to kill pop to get a morale boost for fights...which would also be completely valid.
See all other iterations of "It's not our fault that you keep trying to play with this system the same way you did the old system."
You build a system that makes pop bankers crappy. I guess the system isn't crappy, just pop bankers, right? You should have had the foresight to have made a change already. The strategies involved in war now are asinine.
Why? Not long ago it was pretty standard to kill pop on a pop banker before doing a jump to boost con bonus, why not do it before a war to reduce morale costs?
Coolspin wrote:I returned to ic this round to play and have fun, all i can say is that im still waiting for the fun part. and sadly these new changes really takes ALL the fun out of it, there's no doubt what is the problem..
I dont have to think it trough, its an easy decision and im not going to "deal whit it", ill let undeath deal whit it while im going to leave it for some other online game..and im not alone. Its just sad.
Atm im only sticking around beeing semi-active cuz i dont want to abandon my family mid round but as soon as round is over then im out unless mods can get their finger out and make miracles happen, but whit their activity i really doubt that..
bye!
I think it's funny that people still pop bank with the new system
We're working on a compensation so that pop banking is a decent option, but the way it stands having a pop banker in your family ruins your morale. Unless you're either operating under the idea that you're going defensive (completely valid method of gameplay, not sure why people hate it) or you go into it planning to kill pop to get a morale boost for fights...which would also be completely valid.
See all other iterations of "It's not our fault that you keep trying to play with this system the same way you did the old system."
I'd guess that a complete shutdown of the game would be a more likely outcome.
I'd guess whichever family loses their pop banker will end up winning...as long as they manage savings properly. Hell 67's pop guy is 44% of their nw Smart play would be to save up, kill his wiz, and hope he get's opped to hell.
Rev wrote:I am going to watch and laugh when you both realise the morale system doesn't work the way you think. planet count fam nw player vs player all go towards it but when your big nw and holding large pcounts from natural gain it still costs u heeluva morale...
real war can only be done at BOR now the later you leave it the less u can attack when your up top, regardless of whether you have close nw or not.
(this isn't true, it's all about the % difference between families/players. A 10% difference at huge nw and planet count is the same as a 10% difference in a small nw and planet count)
{Black Mafia} IC Death wrote:sad enough with this morale system u need to take more feed back from players and implentment it.. their are no more NEW players like UK said its nothing but returning vets.. and it breaks old vets hearts to see what the game they loved when they were in high school, college, or hell even using as a small hobby has become.. where just ur low nw u get rewarded with more attacks and less morale loss.. its not possible to implentment new changes and then none of the mods play expect 1.. that's dumb if u casted a poll right now I bet u the morale system now to previous the old will win.. nobody likes this its clear maybe 1 or 2 people.. but the majority has already spoken.. now I'm done bashing it.. like I said I'm done after this round anyway.. game is just getting outta hand here.. shit makes no sense and seems nobody cares about the vets that still playin.. just people gasping at invisible new players that are supposedly gonna renew the game lol smh.. (aint no damn new players)
Deal with it
Lone Tiger wrote:How a war game should work....... You have a war, you win, or you lose. If you lose, then for you the game is over.
How IC works..... You have a war, you win or you lose. If you lose, the game isn't done. Now you have to stick around for the next few weeks and try to catch up.
Everyone seems to think the problem is "farming". But I don't think that's it. I think it's that there's no "lose". You don't at any point just lose the game and then it's over. Instead you lose the game, and then you have to stick around for several weeks.
The problem with the new moral system is actually the same problem that the old moral system had only amped up higher. It gives an advantage to lower players. Which makes no sense, and doesn't solve any problem. The higher player SHOULD have an advantage. That's why you try to be the higher player.
There are three separate problems. One problem is the so called "farming", which I think the real problem there is that you don't just let people die. The second problem is that after you lose, you don't die, you just keep playing as a loser, and who wants to do that. And the third problem is the moral system. The moral system is trying to fix the first two problems, but It's causing it's own problem.
The solution is hardcore. Let people die. You die, then you play again. But when you lose, and have to stay around and play as a loser for 3 weeks, that just sucks.
I think the solution is to just let people win and lose. I think people can handle losing. The thing that I think drives people away is when you don't really lose, you just sit there and try to catch up, and the other family slowly drains you.
We'd love to have more playable galaxies, but we don't have the players for it.
When we only have enough players for 7-8 families, we don't have room for alliances... people complain about lack of targets, well having allies would cut your possible targets down even further
The Great Eye wrote:Plus he didn't rap about his magic skills, which is always a positive!
He was wasn't as hardcore as AA!
I thought AA was the best pax
Dronze wrote:i donated $20 {us dollars} on oct 26th 2015 and still haven't received a code i think they don't watch it...but the funds were transferred to Stephan...
all i wanted was to name my planets....
i mentioned to a mod in November and still nothing ... with thanksgiving and all i guess it was just bad timing
Typically the payment won't process until the info has been sent. I'll check this out.
LiGhTGuNs wrote:Suggestion as addition for the current nuking system. Instead of completely random, use the basket method (like done in Tetris to select blocks). Take a basket of 33 nukes. 3 for each type of building. The game randomly selects the nuke from the basket and than removes is from the basket. After 33 nukes you will have exactly hit each building 3 times and your basket will start over. In this system not hitting any CF after 30 nukes has a very low chance of 0.02% (30!/(33!/3!)) and you will know for sure you will hit that CF when the basket runs out of options.
Larger and smaller baskets are offcourse an option.
Just like above, there's currently no way to track what the last nuke did.
Also, what I gather isn't really that people want the nukes to hit each building an equal amount of times, they want the nukes to hit the buildings they want over and over and over
Devillived wrote:I have some questions/suggestions about how nuking is working right now.
1) Does number of agents affect what buildings get nuked? I was under the assumption that its the same regardless of agents used as long as the nuke lands. Therefore I try to use the minimum amount of agents to nuke as long as it succeeds so i don't lose as many agents do to random failures. I think trying to figure out what is the minimum amount of agents required to nuke adds bit more depth to the game instead of sending max amount every time.
2) if it really takes 1000 nukes or 500 nukes to see an average of each building hit 11% of the time, there is already a problem with the current nuking system. Unless you are nuking everyday for half the round, its impossible to reach that amount of nukes, not to mention the random failures and better uses of cash and morale. Realistically you should get an average nuking trend closer to 30-50 nukes or earlier (which is already a couple days of nuking assuming morale cost is 5)
3) I can only speak for myself, but I like to play this game because it is a strategy game, not a game of chance. Technically speaking, it would be possible for someone to only nuke only the main buildings (which i do think would make nukes a bit too strong). I would suggest making nukes so that once it hits a specific building, there is less of a chance for that building to be hit again until all other buildings are hit or 24hrs is up.
1. No, # of agents use in no way effects what will be hit.
2. That's basic probability, the more attempts the closer the numbers will get to even.
3. Not sure if that's possible as currently there's no way for the game to track what was hit last and add that to the formula.
{Black Mafia} IC Death wrote:its not even that now that they've changed the game like this its better to be low activity that way u can pick on big fams and make it hard for them to retake.. u don't even have to expo in core u can just expo around them.. they cant retake all the planets u send cause its costing 40-50% morale to even retake.. hell this is worst then anything u cant even match attacker vs attacker cause for the simple fact one or the other will lose 2-3 times more morale then the other.. its lame we have to rely on one biase opinion of one mod cause the others don't play.. its dumb kick those off who aren't playing.. I'm sick of these mods who haven't played in years making changes and calling it fair its dumb and stupidity on Stefans part to all the shit.. that's why he cant keep a player base.. it use to be simple.. u work hard and active u win.. now all u have to do is stay semi active wait for their is a large enough gap around the no.1 spot expo around them laser trap jump fleet and attack.. hell ops cost the larger fams 20-30-40% morale while their spending 10-14% per attack.. way to [pump] up IC even more..
Right, because the decline in the player base happened after the morale system changed.
Also, to try and further explain our situation to the community, since a few of you are under the impression that we're ignorant idiots throwing numbers around
We actually have a number of balance changes we plan on making, but we're only able to make them one at a time (if we implemented everything at once there'd be no way of knowing what worked and what didn't). Also, and this is the biggest problem, we don't have enough players to set up an area for beta testing. What we get to do, is test stuff to the point that we can be..uhh....reasonably certain that the server won't explode when we implement the change....then we implement it...and get to see what happens. We'd love to be able to set up a beta testing environment with an accelerated format where we have 10 families with 10 players each so that we could test the effects potential changes before implementing them into the main game...but we don't have 100 total. What we're forced to do is implement changes slowly after running as many numbers as we can (i have some super crazy spreadsheets).
That all being said, I apologize if at any point I'm rude in my responses. I try to take at least a small chunk out of each day to jump on the forums and check out what you guys are saying. Typically it's incredibly frustrating as we're a game of veterans who complain that we need changes, then complain when we make changes because changing is hard....and that's fine, we're all playing a 17 year old game that has experienced very little change since it's inception...but I still show up. I might get testy, I might sarcastically respond to something after already responding to the same complaint 3 other times in different places, but we're still working to keep this thing going.
LiGhTGuNs wrote:It actually is about statistics. Doing 50 nukes in a row results in 1.3% chance of not hitting any cf. That is high enough to actually happen on a regular basis.
I don't think we should keep the current Nuke system, though.
Again, we're looking into it, but the primary goal is going to be getting morale balanced out.
Epiknicedude wrote:Point is undeath.. We did so many nukes and not one of them hit his CF's
It's not about the failing.. it's not about the statistics you are showing us.. it's all about doing 50 nukes and not hitting the CF's one freaking time. It looks fishy and you should agree with that instead of saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Round was won by them anyway.. we just wanted to go out with a blast.. we just wanted to have a final shot at it and proving that being 10% of their NW we could still hurt them really bad.
As Lightguns says, it's exactly about the statistics I'm showing you I've tried multiple times to duplicate doing 50 nukes and not hitting cfs once, and haven't been able to do it under any circumstances. Unfortunately you guys just had a run of bad luck, and that's all there is to it
k!ngs wrote:In my opinion the moral rules work in that they stop big fams from being able to farm the little guys.
Where they do not work is when smaller fams attack and you do not even have enough moral to do retakes.
I am in family 3* and it is costing me 10% moral to retake from family 6*'s biggest attacker who is over a THIRD bigger than me in NW.... (there family is ahead of mine in score & size)
I know the moral accounts for families NW but I think 10% is far to high.... Even with moral planet bonus's I can't even send retakes to a whole system.
1 StarGate (1966) [14,6] 1295 12425911 57642
2 100% Beast Mode (1967) [72,57] 1237 12110122 60639
3 Back In Time (1971) [88,27] 1049 7158068 30614
4 old school (1972) [95,80] 802 6632862 34240
5 ~New Beginning~ (1969) [64,4] 821 6331504 22752
6 Get a Life! (1970) [43,30] 1166 5920287 37392
7 Time for the reconnaissance (1968) [24,59] 952 4379291 27547
8 I come in peace (1973) [38,87] 133 785291 2387
One thing we're trying out in Supernova this round is reduced planet counts for each system, which could help in your particular case.
Size doesn't add into the morale formula at all, it's just a stat Stefan put together years ago to show how people did throughout an entire round.
You're 71% of his nw, have 50 more planets than him, and are in a family that is doing better nw wise (weighs more than size)
The new system is actually benefiting you, as since he's only 53% of your size (planet count, the only thing the old system accounted for), it would be costing you 12-14% morale for each attack on him
I've pointed this out to devs before, but I'll poke them again.
Posts found: 201 to 225 of 3,174