Transparency between partners

[Walking_Death]

A solo is solo, not a 3 man alliance.

even alliances can't tell when it's a friendly spy or hax most of the time

 

[alwaysnumb]

You can always ask your nap if they just spied you. You should be talking so you will know approximate numbers of troops.
I think you are missing the point. Which is its not about making things convinient for solos but making it inconvinient but workable so as allies then have benefits, give those benefits away to solos and alliances in a game designed for alliances become less attractive.

 

[TehPantz]

This suggestion deals with making the wrong components of the game easier. This is a war game after all and it is "intended" to challenge you. Where does the fun go if you make everything easy and within arms reach? I think some short-cuts are nice such as harv calculators and irc bots, but altering tactical play upsets the balance and takes away from the experience.

 

[Stegosaurus]

A solo is solo, not a 3 man alliance.

even alliances can't tell when it's a friendly spy or hax most of the time

Your point = ?

 

[timtadams]

This suggestion deals with making the wrong components of the game easier. This is a war game after all and it is "intended" to challenge you. Where does the fun go if you make everything easy and within arms reach?

I always thought the fun and challenging part was attacking and defending successfully. Not hacking and spying every tick.

I think some short-cuts are nice such as harv calculators and irc bots, but altering tactical play upsets the balance and takes away from the experience.

I have to spy my NAP every tick.
Now what is tactical about that?
I enjoy nothing about the 'experience' of constantly flying over my partner.

In conclusion i do not support being able to see you NAPs troops. I also do not support being informed on incoming to your NAPs inc. However, i would not be against some sort of secondary notice of inc at say, Att 3, allowing you to send blockers. Its not much, but its something

 

[TehPantz]

This suggestion deals with making the wrong components of the game easier. This is a war game after all and it is "intended" to challenge you. Where does the fun go if you make everything easy and within arms reach?

I always thought the fun and challenging part was attacking and defending successfully. Not hacking and spying every tick.

I think some short-cuts are nice such as harv calculators and irc bots, but altering tactical play upsets the balance and takes away from the experience.

I have to spy my NAP every tick.
Now what is tactical about that?
I enjoy nothing about the 'experience' of constantly flying over my partner.

In conclusion i do not support being able to see you NAPs troops. I also do not support being informed on incoming to your NAPs inc. However, i would not be against some sort of secondary notice of inc at say, Att 3, allowing you to send blockers. Its not much, but its something

in conclusion...you should not be going solo if you dislike all the tedious things that go hand in hand with solo play involving pnaps. The constant hacking and spying for a competitive pnap triangle might be the price to pay in order to transform from solo to...not a solo

 

[LuckySports]

There are advantages to being solo that HEAVILY outweigh the advantage of being in an alliance. AR for instance? Alliances don't get garanteed defense when the incoming exceeds a certain point. In an alliance, you can have 20 people on 1 tick that had to come with a +2 modifyer to attack you.. Solo? 1 person is likely to trigger, and throw in a pnap, and your very difficult to land on at all. If your inconvenienced by "spying and hacking" every tick, get over it. You have the government to keep your arse alive, and if someone does manage to get into that perfect little gap between AR and your ability to defend, and your pnap forgets to spy, and you get zeroed and lose some land. You have several days of high AR to get back up there.

In short, Alliances do have a lot of advantages, 19 other people to look after you, see your incoming, politics to chat in, ect..

But a group of active solos can dominate, just like an active alliance. (I believe last round showed this quite well, even if they did trigger on each other to do it)

 

[Alcibiades]

I don't particularly like this idea; for all the ideas stated above by Hobbezak, toby, TehPantz etc.

Thumbs down, i'm afraid.

 

[timtadams]

There are advantages to being solo that HEAVILY outweigh the advantage of being in an alliance. AR for instance? Alliances don't get garanteed defense when the incoming exceeds a certain point. In an alliance, you can have 20 people on 1 tick that had to come with a +2 modifyer to attack you.. Solo? 1 person is likely to trigger, and throw in a pnap, and your very difficult to land on at all. If your inconvenienced by "spying and hacking" every tick, get over it. You have the government to keep your arse alive, and if someone does manage to get into that perfect little gap between AR and your ability to defend, and your pnap forgets to spy, and you get zeroed and lose some land. You have several days of high AR to get back up there.

In short, Alliances do have a lot of advantages, 19 other people to look after you, see your incoming, politics to chat in, ect..

But a group of active solos can dominate, just like an active alliance. (I believe last round showed this quite well, even if they did trigger on each other to do it)

I would like to point out that the government is not a reliable source of defence. It is quite easy to be zeroed as a solo (something that happens to me a number of times a round, whether solo or allied). The government basically gives you a chance to rebuild.

But yes you are right, there are advantages/disadvantages to both alliances and solos. I think the whole triggering on each other is lame though

 

[Alcibiades]

You are supposed to be zeroed a couple of times a round. Government defence is not meant to protect you 24/7 for the whole round. There are times when you're pretty much going to have to die, either deliberately to increase your AR, or by accident when you're offline.

To have solos notified when their partner gets Incoming is abhorrent to me; especially "just for last tick" How annoying would it be to have plotted the death of a solo for however long it's taken, and then only to have yourself blocked by some assbandit with 50m SDs and 10m Stuns simply because they automatically got notified about their incoming. As Hobbezak has said; Communication is the key. Solos just have to be more up on their game, if they want to be as competitive as alliances. That's the simple truth.

 

[timtadams]

You are supposed to be zeroed a couple of times a round. Government defence is not meant to protect you 24/7 for the whole round. There are times when you're pretty much going to have to die, either deliberately to increase your AR, or by accident when you're offline.

Thats the point i was trying to make. Gov is not supposed to save your ass every time.

To have solos notified when their partner gets Incoming is abhorrent to me; especially "just for last tick" How annoying would it be to have plotted the death of a solo for however long it's taken, and then only to have yourself blocked by some assbandit with 50m SDs and 10m Stuns simply because they automatically got notified about their incoming. As Hobbezak has said; Communication is the key. Solos just have to be more up on their game, if they want to be as competitive as alliances. That's the simple truth.

Fair enough. I tend to agree.

 

[Walking_Death]

You are supposed to be zeroed a couple of times a round. Government defence is not meant to protect you 24/7 for the whole round. There are times when you're pretty much going to have to die, either deliberately to increase your AR, or by accident when you're offline.

To have solos notified when their partner gets Incoming is abhorrent to me; especially "just for last tick" How annoying would it be to have plotted the death of a solo for however long it's taken, and then only to have yourself blocked by some assbandit with 50m SDs and 10m Stuns simply because they automatically got notified about their incoming. As Hobbezak has said; Communication is the key. Solos just have to be more up on their game, if they want to be as competitive as alliances. That's the simple truth.

first off, very clever. Assbandit. By the way, blockers don't prevent death. They prevent land loss.

And heres an update of ideas. I know all of you have already expressed extreme disapproval to most of these, but if one doesn't make it... accuracy by volume, as they call it . This is mostly just to recap. And to know exactly what we're talking/flinging
feces about.

- An "Incoming" board for solos. How far it can see is questionable. Perhaps, they could put funds in to bring it from Att. for 3 to ETA 2.
- "Friendly" hax/spy (for alliances as well!) are automatically identified (i.e. it'll be just like regular in your feed as if you detected them)
- An ability to see stealth units if you hax your friend (for alliances as well) [this is downgraded from the automatically see your allies stuff idea].

In defense of these, you shouldn't ever HAVE to be 0ed in my opinion. And correct me if I am mistaken, but didn't they bring in preventive measures about AR mod abuse?

Last round was a fluke because no alliances were really stable throughout. Finale, ReQUITal, and those are just the 2 I was in that managed to flop. There was all sorts of shuffling, Brucifying of alliances, etc. No one was there to continuously rape the solos, except each other in a controlled manner, until finally the solos rose up, mostly because of manipulation of the system, and the disorientation of the alliances to form AR Mod. Thats the real reason that solos are so "strong" in your eyes. Just because solos have the government to stop people from continuously using their ass as a ... well, ass that you rape continuously, doesn't mean that they're all THAT strong. Small solos, even the ones with partners, could use any help that they could get in a game where they can barely hit anyone. Everyone is either in an alliance or has been recently raped by an alliance, making finding a target incredibly hard. Just my PoV.

 

[Davs]

Small solos, even the ones with partners, could use any help that they could get in a game where they can barely hit anyone

As someone who regularly plays as a "small solo" I can safely say that this is bs. Attacking as a solo is no harder just because you're on your own. Yes, you need to take defenders under more consideration as you won't have someone to draw defence for you, but it's still doable.

And as for the "need to be zeroed", it's a ott way to put it (imo) but it's along the right lines. As a solo it's in your best interests to keep a high AR mod, so tactically losing a few troops here and there helps to maintain that.

 

[atsanjose]

if everyone zeroes 3 people in one round that means that someone also gets zeroed multiple times.
people kill you, and you kill people. thats the way it is, otherwise this would be a dumb game.

and if you wanne know if your mate needs defence go make an alliance with them. or dont and keep spying and hacking eachother.

there are pro's and con's for both alliance and solo play, and what youre suggesting is that solo's wont have cons anymore.

 

[Stegosaurus]

You are supposed to be zeroed a couple of times a round. Government defence is not meant to protect you 24/7 for the whole round. There are times when you're pretty much going to have to die, either deliberately to increase your AR, or by accident when you're offline.

To have solos notified when their partner gets Incoming is abhorrent to me; especially "just for last tick" How annoying would it be to have plotted the death of a solo for however long it's taken, and then only to have yourself blocked by some assbandit with 50m SDs and 10m Stuns simply because they automatically got notified about their incoming. As Hobbezak has said; Communication is the key. Solos just have to be more up on their game, if they want to be as competitive as alliances. That's the simple truth.

first off, very clever. Assbandit. By the way, blockers don't prevent death. They prevent land loss.

And heres an update of ideas. I know all of you have already expressed extreme disapproval to most of these, but if one doesn't make it... accuracy by volume, as they call it . This is mostly just to recap. And to know exactly what we're talking/flinging
feces about.

- An "Incoming" board for solos. How far it can see is questionable. Perhaps, they could put funds in to bring it from Att. for 3 to ETA 2.
- "Friendly" hax/spy (for alliances as well!) are automatically identified (i.e. it'll be just like regular in your feed as if you detected them)
- An ability to see stealth units if you hax your friend (for alliances as well) [this is downgraded from the automatically see your allies stuff idea].

In defense of these, you shouldn't ever HAVE to be 0ed in my opinion. And correct me if I am mistaken, but didn't they bring in preventive measures about AR mod abuse?

Last round was a fluke because no alliances were really stable throughout. Finale, ReQUITal, and those are just the 2 I was in that managed to flop. There was all sorts of shuffling, Brucifying of alliances, etc. No one was there to continuously rape the solos, except each other in a controlled manner, until finally the solos rose up, mostly because of manipulation of the system, and the disorientation of the alliances to form AR Mod. Thats the real reason that solos are so "strong" in your eyes. Just because solos have the government to stop people from continuously using their ass as a ... well, ass that you rape continuously, doesn't mean that they're all THAT strong. Small solos, even the ones with partners, could use any help that they could get in a game where they can barely hit anyone. Everyone is either in an alliance or has been recently raped by an alliance, making finding a target incredibly hard. Just my PoV.

Hugo, give up, seriously. I don't understand what the **** you're trying to convey.

Solo != 3 man alliances.
Solo == solo. End of story. pnaps are just a bonus.

If you want the advantages that alliance players get, join an alliance.

 

[Walking_Death]

Hugo, give up, seriously. I don't understand what the **** you're trying to convey.

Solo != 3 man alliances.
Solo == solo. End of story. pnaps are just a bonus.

If you want the advantages that alliance players get, join an alliance.

what I'm trying to convey is that I wish they just had a few of the bonuses of alliances, and that is where our opinions clash, simple as that. And they won't be little alliances just because they have ONE of the perks. I'm not giving them politics boards, or an HQ...

 

[alwaysnumb]

Also troops have different eta. Much easier to defend from Att3 as a pom but other routes its much harder to defend from this point and save land.

 

[webvictim]

- An "Incoming" board for solos. How far it can see is questionable. Perhaps, they could put funds in to bring it from Att. for 3 to ETA 2.

No. This combined with tactically high AR would make it pretty much impossible to land on solo pnaps who had a spread of timezone activity. You'd just have someone sitting there with an auto-refresh plugin and sending defence whenever an attack appeared.

- "Friendly" hax/spy (for alliances as well!) are automatically identified (i.e. it'll be just like regular in your feed as if you detected them)

Being hacked or spied doesn't automatically mean you're going to get attacked. It's just an indication. Knowing whether it's friendly or not would tell you very little.

- An ability to see stealth units if you hax your friend (for alliances as well) [this is downgraded from the automatically see your allies stuff idea].

...this is a ridiculous suggestion. Do you want to remove *any* of the skill it takes to play the game, as well as any need to communicate? Allies currently have to keep updated troop counts in politics/titles to reflect stealth - a well-organised solo team could have a forum, Google Wave, IRC topic, Skype/MSN group chat or anything else they liked to allow them to keep accurate troop counts. Making this process entirely automated just removes yet another element of skill from the game.

In defense of these, you shouldn't ever HAVE to be 0ed in my opinion. And correct me if I am mistaken, but didn't they bring in preventive measures about AR mod abuse?

You can get zeroed in an alliance, either if you're offline and get no defence or you forget to send out when online - I don't see why it should be any different for solos other than the fact that if someone sends stupid amounts of troops at you, the government will try and stop them. If someone jumps through all the necessary hoops to calculate your AR mod properly, to realise when you're offline and to capitalise on this, they deserve to zero you and get some land for their trouble. This is a war game.

 

[Walking_Death]

Can we at least have something that says when our Pnaps are online or does that take all the work out of everything as well?

 

[tobapopalos]

Can we at least have something that says when our Pnaps are online or does that take all the work out of everything as well?

You can have that. It's called in-game mail. And you can have something which tells you when they have incoming. That's called in-game mail. And you can even have something which tells you when they have stealth incoming. That's also called in-game mail.

Stop trying to dumb down the game.