This sounds like a tactical ploy to make people go avian, meanwhile Godly picks the anti-avian. #metagamedQuote:
Originally Posted by Godly
Printable View
This sounds like a tactical ploy to make people go avian, meanwhile Godly picks the anti-avian. #metagamedQuote:
Originally Posted by Godly
No insight needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
1. Flogger gets OOP farm war, gains huge advantage
2. Goldy complains that utopia isn't fair
3. Flogger chooses to remove his own land to ease Goldy's tears
4. Goldy crowns
It's science
No? The bulk of the land gained around the point people are saying they should have WDed was from TMs and avians. Each TM was down 2-3k and 3 of the 4 avians were very low. Humans were doing quite well. Also the GC advantage wasn't that large due to Div giving Pandas about 400 mil gc.... also they had about what 1 week to prep with war+fort?Quote:
Originally Posted by flogger
I know the easiest way to downplay the WW is to say that it was over before it started. People have stated things like gold advantage, science advantage and whatever else advantage. That's the point I'm making. Human gets you there. You can't just say "avian would beat human merc if you remove all the advantages human has like gold and science due to getting out in the lead and forcing CFs."
If you're looking for the absolute best warring setup, it's probably not what we ran. I think the setup, however, is the best chance to crown. Normally when you take the fastest race, it comes with some late game drawbacks like a weak elite. In this round it surprisingly didn't. I'm not sure how you're not seeing this still?
I'm probably not even playing next round. My comments are for the good of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetley
This is a dangerous time to trigger godly. Zauper just left for his wedding + honeymoon for 2 weeks so there's nobody to rein him in :s
Flogger pick me.
I'm 5-2 vs godly in all conflicts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godly
The conflict with Pandas was far from over when it started. I told both Peetah and Anri that all they had to do was to hit down your t/ms, take down 1 or 2 cows, and then use the big land lead they would have after min time to wd and b2b you and they would have the advantage round 2 with a ton of 10-14k provs, all t/ms untouched and you at 4 big cows, weaker core and t/ms at say 4kish after ww acres. Your setup was obviously more durable, especially with such solid dwarf cows, and when they got last sapphire on you but failed big to fb down zauper it became very clear they wouldnt be able to control the cows peasant and from that moment it was just gonna get nastier and nastier.
That being said. CRs performance vs Pandas was top notch. Pandas had a window, didnt take it, you won age. Thats how close things can be.
I also think things would had been different had Pandas gone for CR one of the two times they went for Divinity instead and then didnt have enough time to prep for CR after the wins.
You mean man! I never go in sitting. I maintain a constant level of activity slightly above sitting. :'(Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Utopian
I agree. We blew the window. We had an almost perfect exit situation that likely had enabled us to win round2 vs CR and crown the age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shai
Not much to say about the potential b2b. The 'optimal' withdraw ticks had our core troops getting home within 2 hours (i.e. planning to withdraw on jul13 after their wave from peak land of just shy of 190 during war is planning to WD with them at 186.5 after inc and us at 177k before WW bonus.) so it would have been impossible to snag a full free wave, and in any case we had significantly more incoming than they did -- enough such that after WW bonus, we would have been bigger.
Beating a human merchant kd in a b2b is very difficult, especially due to elite credits and relative strength of cows at WD. They had 7 provs over 10k, with a high of ~14.5k at that time. We had 8, with at least 2 that were over 20k with incoming + WW bonus (at least 7 of which were safe vs their core so they couldn't have been hit for lots in a 'wd wave' tactic. Our being outnumbered at the top would have disappeared - at cfdrop we were looking at the war as 5v10 at the top, and we would have established a larger military lead (plus the WPA to protect some of our provs). Our 20ks vs 14.5k is a much larger land lead than our former ~16ks over a 14.5k at cfdrop. We would have been able to extend our military advantage at the top over a b2b, especially as merchants that were already deeper trained vs tacts. Of course, this assumes that Div doesn't go and farm another 400M to pandas, but even that probably wouldn't have changed the outcome.
Hard to know the final outcome without playing it out of course, but I'm pretty confident we'd have won a b2b -- in the next war, the focus would have just been farming land on our top 4.
do we care yet? are the changes final?
Last time I was here and Bishop posted "potential changes" I posted suggestions on them and was told that it didn't matter what people said, the changes were already set. Even though it was a "potential changes" list. He told us that we should have said something earlier in the age (Well before he posted the potential changes, mind you).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheister
That's not what happened.
The potential changes thread discussion is for tweaks on the proposed changes (suggestions which are more often than not listened to). It's not for suggesting entire new mechanics to be implemented.
It is what happened, I just checked the entire thread. Even YOU posted after Bishop said the change was final and questioned whether it should have been reworked instead of removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
You said:
"I'm still waiting on a proper explaination of why fog needs to be removed instead of tweeked..."
That is a quote from YOU Palem, about four hours after Bishop had said:
"Fog is gone, its not coming back."
DHaren said:
"Then they shouldn't complain when changes get made that they don't like. If you don't contribute to the discussion you have no grounds to complain IMO."
Other people said things like:
"People ARE contributing to the discussion now that they are proposed changes. That's the whole POINT of posting proposed changes before posting the final changes so people can discuss them before they are set in stone. However, flat out stating that FOG is removed and never coming back, even though a lot of people want it to stay in the game is stupid. Bishop needs to put his blunt down and start listening to what people are saying.
Do you suggest we just make random posts during an age saying how much we like a certain spell? If we don't, are we therefore not allowed an opinion during end of age change discussions? How stupid is that?"
"To Bishop, Palem and DHaran,
Isn't the whole point of 'potential' changes for us to debate whether the change should happen or not? If Sean and Brian have already decided to remove Fog, then please just put it in the 'potential' changes that it is not 'potential' at all, it will be removed for sure. This will cut down on the debate about the matter. If Sean and Brian have not made a decision to remove it for sure, then I feel that moderators have a responsibility to pass on the message to them that the community still feels that Fog is an important game component. Moderators do NOT represent the views of the majority and if moderators are biased or only listen selectively, then you might just as well call it the moderators' changes and be done with it.
So, what I would like to know is that whether Fog removal is already decided by Sean and Brian or was it decided by the moderators?"
And even (Posted by Palem):
"Keep it civil guys.
Quite frankly, I don't care about the number of people for or against fog. If it's the right decision it's the right decision. I just want to be sure that it is the right decision.
My beef with removing fog is that you're removing a very significant strategical element from the game and this is supposed to be a strategy game. Fog is so very important that kds plan their ages AROUND fog. The only understandable reasoning I could find for it's removal was that it "causes less activity" and while I won't go on a ridiculous tirade (seriously, removing Plague? lol) I will point out...that's kind of the aim behind EVERY strategy. You chain people so they'll overpop and might miss a hit. You try to get better attack times than your opponent so you can outhit them. You come up with a good strategy to minimize the effectiveness of the enemy's hits. At the very least why isn't fog the same as chaining? Fog is really just speaking directly to the nature of the beast...
If the devs think Fog is overpowered, sure, I'll even agree with them, but why hastily do away with it? The only reason to do that is if the concept itself if harmful to the game. Fog is only harmful to the game if it's not appropriately open to countering, which in it's current state, it's not (I don't agree, but I'm reasonable enough to give in that perhaps it's too tough). So then change it. Make it a One-time spell, make it %-based, make it that you don't need to run an extra 30% rax to counter, but another 5% maybe.
I don't want to see this game dumbed down."
Not trying to rile anything up, just clearing up facts. Once the potential changes are posted, discussion of the changes is irrelevant since they are already going to happen.
Wrong. You took a single example of a small part of the changes and extrapolated that the changes are locked once the prelims are posted. This isn't the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by zsivhawk
Okay. I will say that in my experience the changes are locked after being posted as potential. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop