Ouch even i felt that and i dont feel pain 
3 Jul 2018, 19:42
Redesign of the Research System
This is a groundbreaking proposal that will require the reader to really pay attention in order to fully grasp the importance of — and need for — this suggestion.
~O~
OK. So I've been thinking about the research system. It's designed to encourage players to choose only portions of the total stock of technologies and focus on them. I can agree with that, in principle (somewhat), but it offers a terrible disadvantage in a game where there are many players in some individual matches.
It's one thing for you and your enemy to both focus on naval technologies. But if you are an island-centric nation and you are surrounded by vast land-based empires, your navy will never be able to compete in the long run. So spending your research on naval power -- which makes sense in the early game for an island nation -- will have been an utter failure since you can't compete on land once your competition has grown past you in the mainland. The most you can hope for is your nearest neighbors to go inactive so you can sneak onto the mainland and take over their holdings without much resistance just so you can grow your army to take on the active mainland players, later on.
At the same time, if you are a small but powerful landlocked nation in the Pacific Map per se, and your competitors are on the other side of the map with vast navies, you'll never be able to successfully cross the ocean safely enough to invade their lands. Moreover, they're going to eventually be able to transport their entire armies into your lands thus overwhelming you because they have a monopoly on the seas.
Some players like to hyperfocus on very few technologies, i.e., Tanks and Bombers, where they can gain an early/mid game advantage if they are lucky enough to secure a good supply of Oil. Other players like to hyperfocus on just Infantry and slow-moving guns so they can turtle up and never offer much to the game and, heaven forbid, if anyone tries to invade their puny nation, it'll cost the invader dearly, thus freeing up a third nation to wipe out both of these two after they've decimated each other.
~O~
Sure, those various scenarios offer a variety of playing styles. But the problem with them is that you are pigeon-holed into your decision -- like going down a rabbit trail -- where you can't just back out and change your mind without suffering vast technological deficiencies. So, if you decide to change your focus on naval power (for instance) into air power, your newly-constructed air forces will not be able to compete against your competitors who already built up their air corps and so your change in focus will only fail.
The point, here, is that the technology is divided into five main groups...well four really, with the "secret" branch being more like a special or supplementary branch to the main four branches. And with the various prerequisite technologies being more varied up front, the early game forces you to at least research Infantry before you can research most of the other slow ground-based technologies and you must research the Armored Car before you can research many of the other armored ground-based technologies. Until the recent categories change, you had to research Fighters before you could research AA. And, despite the reorganization of the categories, you still must research slow Artillery guns before you can research fast Self-Propelled Artillery.
Now, those cross-category research requirements in the early game do help to balance the play somewhat. But the fact that they only affect the research focus for balancing in the early game is problematic. Because the typical player might only research levels 1 and 2 of Artillery so that they can unlock the SP-Artillery and only research and build the SP versions from there, thus never researching beyond level 2 of regular Artillery and never wanting to build any, anyway.
Now, I'm not in favor of forcing any player to build a balanced military. Though I much prefer balance, myself, if someone else wants to build nothing but Bombers, that's their choice. But as it stands, now, the way the technology system is set up, it encourages players to hyperfocus on only a few technologies.
~O~
So I propose this change. First, the prerequisites for various techs should continue to be cross-category far and above the early versions of each tech area. For example, instead of just requiring level 2 AA tech before researching level 1 SP-AA, maybe the level 3 SP-AA should require level 4 AA tech in addition to level 3 SP-AA tech. And, the level 5 Naval Bomber should require maybe level 3 Tac Bomber tech combined with level 4 Submarine tech...this would simulate the impetus behind both the need for and ingenuity behind the design of a more advanced Naval Bomber. Maybe it would make sense for a level 4 Light Tank to require the engine upgrades designed for a level 3 Armored Car. And maybe a level 3 Transport Ship should require a level 2 Medium Tank to be researched to simulate the need for, not just a faster ship, but one with a larger cargo-hold for those heavier units.
Already, this kind of thinking is behind the Nuclear Bomber...the higher level Nuke Bombers require higher-level Strategic Bomber technology. So why not implement this across the board?
Then, to facilitate this need for more research, so that the pigeon-holing isn't just prevented, but the ability to actually keep up in research across the board is better-balanced, I propose more research slots be made available. However, I am not proposing more of the slots as they currently are. Instead, there needs to be only one research slot per each of the four main categories and one additional slot for any category including the Secret branch. This way, you will always have one research slot dedicated to the naval branch, one for the Air branch, one for the Infantry branch, and one for the Armored branch.
The fifth slot can focus on the Secret branch while being able to supplement any of the other branches as well. I believe that fifth slot would offer both an additional bit of balance as well as enabling players the ability to still choose to focus on fewer technological paths, somewhat.
~O~
Thus, to sum up, my proposal is twofold:
1.) Increase the prerequisite technologies for higher level techs with cross-category requirements.
2.) Have 5 research slots...1 for each of the 4 main categories and the 5th. slot for any category including Secret.
Mod edit - changed the title of this thread as it is obviously not "Top Priority"
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
133 Replies
3 Jul 2018, 22:15 (edited)
not even going to try to compute that, you can have it upfront:Diabolical wrote:
lol, yeah, "I" played bad. I seem to remember that particular match, and it just so happens that I lost almost my entire army because I left them sitting on the coastline of the UK while I was busy all day in town. Now, the only problem I had was the fact that I simply forgot to tell my army to offload onto land and fight before I left for the day. That's on me and my ADHD. But does that make me a bad player? Nope. And that's the only time you got to see my forces lose "badly".cchyt wrote:
This high idea about yourself though comes as a surprise because we have played together in a PL game and you were part of my coalition with Mark and you played so bad we could not believe it.I also seem to remember another match....that North American map one....where you and I were not on the same team. And I had to fight tooth and nail to gain ground in a losing war where I only had one ally at my side while our third was largely absent. And yet, the two of us who remained gave about five other players the bloodiest nose they've ever had. Even that Clownpunk, or whatever he calls himself, was nearly wiped out by my armies and your pal, Mark (whom I've got nothing bad to say about) was able to take advantage of the situation and, I think managed to win the last season in large part because of that huge match.
In a way, Mark owes me for helping him to win the league since I pretty much kept Clownpunk and his allies from taking over the whole American west. The fact that the three of them (and a couple others aligned with them) were still not enough to take me out until the match was nearly over just goes to show how wrong you are about me. But then, what else is new?
Oh, and one more thing....if I played so "bad", how on earth could I have top-level stats when there are lots of other players who've played just as long as me and many more matches than me who're not even close to my ranking, nor my stats, for that matter?
Just sayin'.
I never said "you" had a problem with gold users. I merely cite them in general. EGO!cchyt wrote:
Moreover, i can not remember when i said that i had problem with gold users etc? i still do not understand why discussing about research when there are more important problems of the game like implementing changes that help starting or mediocre players have a chance and support gold using without compensation for loyal users.But, you say there are bigger fish to fry than the research issue which -- in your estimation -- isn't even an issue. To you, and to any detractors, I say only that if the devs focus on only a single issue at a time, then they'd never get anything done. Their staff is big enough to take on more than one topic or problem. And it's up to them to make the ultimate decisions about which tasks have higher priority than others.
And if they only ever fixed things that are broken, then they'd never EVER get around to adding new features because there'll ALWAYS be broken things in the code. That's a simple fact of any large development. A fix for one problem leads to three other problems, one of which is old but hasn't been discovered, yet; one that is new but exists because the conditions for which a function relied upon have changed; and one that is entirely new and only exists because a mistake was made elsewhere during the implementation of the "fix".
That's just the plague of code development. And as much as I'm a stickler for following code libraries and using responsible forms of Agile development, there will always be flaws in the system because human beings are not perfect no matter how thoroughly they use test cases and flawless coding practices, etc. That's human nature. That doesn't mean they don't explore potential changes....especially ones that are well-founded ideas like mine.
I'm not opposed to stats, etc. What I'm opposed to is a total disregard to rank as well as to creative contributions. Unlike some users, I actually posit some pretty good ideas for improving the game, as well as some very-well-thought out solutions to known problems. You see, not only am I a genius, but I'm actually a programmer with a degree in Software Engineering. I 've studied application development, and I've developed entire suites of applications. I'm also a lifelong strategy gamer and extremely keen on how gaming works on many many levels of play.cchyt wrote:
ps: stats and games won show a lot for a player, it is strange you believe otherwise!You know what? If you want to try to one-up me, then why don't you tell me just how much experience YOU have in this area and how much YOU could contribute to the creative community. In the meantime, if you happen to come up with a good idea to improve the game, I might just find myself endorsing it. But just because you don't like one of my ideas doesn't mean you've gotta pick apart every bit of my ideas. A constructive critique is welcome. A carefully-thought-out deconstruction of one of my ideas is fine too. But simply using straw man arguments like "there's more important things to do" won't fly with me.
I've got no personal issues with you. I hope you don't try to elevate this to a personal level. I'm an INTJ. If you make a sound argument, I will consider it and show you the due respect that you will have earned in making that argument...even if I disagree with your conclusions. But if you just say "this is this" or "that is that" for no valid reason, then I'm going to totally disregard your reasoning, altogether.
In conclusion, I'll leave you with this quote from Harlan Ellison.
Oh, and if you want to know what an INTJ is, it's one of the 16 natural personality types that people can be classified under. Here's an excerpt about the INTJ type from Personality Max, one of many personality typing (Jung, MBTI, etc.) websites that can help you to understand your own -- and others' -- personality.Harlan Ellison wrote:
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
- The INTJ personality type is nicknamed the "Strategist" and belongs to the NT Intellectual temperament. INTJs are private, independent and self-confident. They strive for perfection and achievement. They are gifted strategists with analytical, conceptual and objective minds. They are flexible and like to formulate contingency plans. Strategists are able to see the reasons behind things.
"White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
Jack London, White Fang
My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower
Jack London, White Fang
My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower
8 Jul 2018, 10:14
True. But what if this 13th-biggest problem can be solved very easily? Why not discussing it, then (except for the valid reason that the topic triggers Dias literary appetite)?K.Rokossovski wrote:
There are a lot of problematic issues with the game. The research system is only in, about, the 13th place. When we, the community, want to present any issues AT ALL to the powers that be, we should prioritize, cause it is obvious that resources to change anything are very, very limited.
My idea to increase the research costs for higher levels (researching level 1 remains as is, research of level 2 costs a bit more, research of level 3 two bits more etc.) would require practically no implementation effort. Only a number of front-line pioneer games to find the perfect balance and to make sure it has a positive result.
This would give a motivation to research many unit types in each game. Which would - as Diabolical and I already pointed out - reduce boredom, give the game an additional strategic dimension and make it more realistic. Furthermore, that would have the positive side-effect that research costs would still be an issue in mid and late game. As things are now, after approximately day 12 you just laugh about the research costs and just always keep both research slots filled. Would be more interesting if pausing the research in certain situations was a reasonable option and if it would still be an effort to free resources for research also in later phases of the game.
So why not give this a try?
P.S.: I would still increase only research costs for rare materials of the higher unit levels, but well, realized some of you think differently about that.
9 Jul 2018, 06:50
Oh, I had a thought ... an idea ... to improve the research.Hans A. Pils wrote:
True. But what if this 13th-biggest problem can be solved very easily? Why not discussing it, then (except for the valid reason that the topic triggers Dias literary appetite)?K.Rokossovski wrote:
There are a lot of problematic issues with the game. The research system is only in, about, the 13th place. When we, the community, want to present any issues AT ALL to the powers that be, we should prioritize, cause it is obvious that resources to change anything are very, very limited.My idea to increase the research costs for higher levels (researching level 1 remains as is, research of level 2 costs a bit more, research of level 3 two bits more etc.) would require practically no implementation effort. Only a number of front-line pioneer games to find the perfect balance and to make sure it has a positive result.
This would give a motivation to research many unit types in each game. Which would - as Diabolical and I already pointed out - reduce boredom, give the game an additional strategic dimension and make it more realistic. Furthermore, that would have the positive side-effect that research costs would still be an issue in mid and late game. As things are now, after approximately day 12 you just laugh about the research costs and just always keep both research slots filled. Would be more interesting if pausing the research in certain situations was a reasonable option and if it would still be an effort to free resources for research also in later phases of the game.
So why not give this a try?
P.S.: I would still increase only research costs for rare materials of the higher unit levels, but well, realized some of you think differently about that.
Why not let Gold spies roll back research progress on current research projects?
Also, theft of tech should be a possibility. That it isn't is appalling for a strategy game like this. Furthermore, you should be able to put a price tag on technological improvements...to sell your hard-earned technologies for a steep price in trade.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3
9 Jul 2018, 17:45
"Just because you have an Idea doesn not make it a good one"Diabolical wrote:
Oh, I had a thought ... an idea
Quasi-duck
Sure, why not let them steal armies and provinces as well?Diabolical wrote:
Why not let Gold spies roll back research progress on current research projects?
"White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
Jack London, White Fang
My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower
Jack London, White Fang
My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower
9 Jul 2018, 22:29
In my humble opinion the original proposal is too complex to be easily implemented as it requires many changes and fine tuning to find prooper balance, ensuring that it works correctly across all the maps and the individual nations. Specially when it comes to historical maps it sounds nightmarish and worst it lacks any failsafe to forestall gold abuse.
I propose something simpler:
Instead of starting with 5 research slots as proposed why not ensure that each nation has to earn the right for every research slot it has. Basically as your nation grows acquiring more resources, money, population, etc, so do your research slot.
Taking the basic 22 player map as an example all nations start more or less equal same amount of provinces, 5 with Industrial complex and 2 research slots per nation. As a nation expnads getting closer to the victory conditions by accumulating victory points (VPs) it unlocks a 3rd research slot when it reaches say 100 VPs and so on unlocking a forth slot when it reaches 200 VPs and so forth all the way to a maximum of 5 slots. The above VPs thresholds are a mere example they can be adjusted accordingly to better suit game balance. Also they could even be adjusted per map should the need arise for even better balance.
This method does not require any additional redesign of the existing tech trees. The slots are released gradually and only when conditions are met, giving everyone an equal chance while limiting the potential for gold abuse atleast in the early game.
Just my .02$
9 Jul 2018, 22:42
Both the original proposal and this one simply make MORE research available. I'd estimate when keeping the existing two slots occupied constantly, it is possible to keep about 60% of tech researched as it becomes available. Making it even just THREE slots (I'm not even talking about Diab's FIVE slots, just THREE) will make 90% of tech available. That's just like removing the research system altogether.
I maintain that the best way to make research a truly strategic factor is to make it more resource-based and less time-based.
10 Jul 2018, 05:54
Lmao I don't need to read anymore. We can't say Dia is bad anymore because he is disabled, so we're going to have implement every feature he suggests. This is a bit like a blind taxi driver.Diabolical wrote:
lol, yeah, "I" played bad. I seem to remember that particular match, and it just so happens that I lost almost my entire army because I left them sitting on the coastline of the UK while I was busy all day in town. Now, the only problem I had was the fact that I simply forgot to tell my army to offload onto land and fight before I left for the day. That's on me and my ADHD. But does that make me a bad player? Nope. And that's the only time you got to see my forces lose "badly".
10 Jul 2018, 10:37
I agree that research should remain a strategic factor forcing each commander to make some very hard choices. I believe that my proposal does not jeopedize that as it doesnt unlock all the research slots from the get go, but progressively over time as the nation grows. Is it really so horrible that after two weeks of a hard won campaigning your nation accumulated enough VPs to unlock a 3rd slot? After month of conquering your rivals if you accumulated enough VPs for a 4th slot why not have access to it?K.Rokossovski wrote:
Both the original proposal and this one simply make MORE research available. I'd estimate when keeping the existing two slots occupied constantly, it is possible to keep about 60% of tech researched as it becomes available. Making it even just THREE slots (I'm not even talking about Diab's FIVE slots, just THREE) will make 90% of tech available. That's just like removing the research system altogether.I maintain that the best way to make research a truly strategic factor is to make it more resource-based and less time-based.
Unless you tell me you do not find it paradoxal that a nation that spans half the globe has the same research capabilities as a nation with 10 provinces which is what is currently happening.
Lastly current research system is so restrictive that it forces you to choose a certain path and not dare deviate from it for risk of getting steamrolled. By the time you have researched your "must haves" there is no point researching the "nice to haves"
90% of the time by this point wither you do research more or not its moot and makes very little difference in the situation you are faced with as you are already dominating or already dead.
In my huble opinion this is wrong, that is why you rarely see a proper blue water navy these days or any strategy that is not a varient of the accepted light tank / tactical bombers spam. A properly balanced research system should give you more options as your nation expands not force you down the same path over and over again.
10 Jul 2018, 22:12
This is actually true. It is a complex series of rebalancing and of adding additional requirement paths for technologies. However, programmatically-speaking, it is not reinventing the wheel. Simply using more of the same preexistent functionality is easy for the devs to do. But, choosing the correct set of additional paths would require more forethought. That is why I said that it would take some time to execute, and, like with my new Artillery terrain balancing proposal, this could take more than a single update to get the balance figured out, fully. But, that is why the devs have the Frontline Pioneers beta program...so that people like me (Frontline Pioneers) can test the new features and report on their effectiveness before they are released to the general gaming community.Kanaris wrote:
In my humble opinion the original proposal is too complex to be easily implemented as it requires many changes and fine tuning to find prooper balance
Now, I have to admit, this is a pretty good idea. While I'm not sure as to the merits vs. my proposal, it shows that you are thinking and not just being a naysayer. Some people will throw out an idea just to see if it sticks, but this one actually has merit. This seems more like an achievement/milestone marker-based idea than just being a universally-available requirement. And apart from balancing questions, in terms of when or how to add the additional slots, making this merit-based could be a great idea. Bravo!Kanaris wrote:
I propose something simpler:Instead of starting with 5 research slots as proposed why not ensure that each nation has to earn the right for every research slot it has. Basically as your nation grows acquiring more resources, money, population, etc, so do your research slot.
Though I have praised your idea, I must point out one potential flaw with it. It would seem that if you have a merit-based method of adding research slots, that it could pave the way towards encouraging that so-called "gold abuse" in that some people might be motivated to spend even more gold earlier in a match to get leaps and bounds ahead of other players even before those others get a chance to try for the additional research slots.Kanaris wrote:
Taking the basic 22 player map as an example all nations start more or less equal same amount of provinces, 5 with Industrial complex and 2 research slots per nation. As a nation expnads getting closer to the victory conditions by accumulating victory points (VPs) it unlocks a 3rd research slot when it reaches say 100 VPs and so on unlocking a forth slot when it reaches 200 VPs and so forth all the way to a maximum of 5 slots. The above VPs thresholds are a mere example they can be adjusted accordingly to better suit game balance. Also they could even be adjusted per map should the need arise for even better balance.
However, it may simply be that the time-based requirements of additional tech-availability could be applied also to the availability of additional research slots despite having met the VP or resource requirements of them. Of course, like with my own proposal, this would require some careful consideration by the devs.
I still like your idea and I think it could be adapted to work hand-in-hand with my own proposal so that, instead of just adding more research slots over time, you might also be forced to choose which additional slot gets added such that, aside from your original starting two slots, the additional slots can only be applied to a single branch of tech. In this way, you would be forced to choose which generalized path you want to have the added research availability...which would pigeon-hole you into sticking with your choices, more -- a tactical choice that could be either good or bad for you and a good way to force this game into more-varied strategies as the community learns how to live with it's individual choices —— I like this!
Also, to keep from tipping the scales too far into any one direction, perhaps you can only add one additional research slot per tech branch and upto a maximum of 5 research slots, all told. So, in this way, my proposal's needed limitations would act as a safeguard against your proposal's potential for abuse.
This is a valid point...to an extent...but I think it would still be less true in that you must still conduct the research, you must still acquire the needed resources (a part which you favor more of, anyway), and you still can't start researching any of the techs until they are made available both by the time requirements of release as well as the needed (and in my proposal's case, "more") prerequisites.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Both the original proposal and this one simply make MORE research available. I'd estimate when keeping the existing two slots occupied constantly, it is possible to keep about 60% of tech researched as it becomes available. Making it even just THREE slots (I'm not even talking about Diab's FIVE slots, just THREE) will make 90% of tech available. That's just like removing the research system altogether.
Though I like your idea and also think it could be integrated with my own proposal, there is an additional risk that this could lead to runaway exaggeration between the winning and losing trends within a match such that being in the lead acts more like a guarantee of victory rather than just a general likelihood which could have been overcome. Thus it would require some kind of limiting factors to guarantee that this isn't the case...perhaps factors besides those natural safeguards built into my proposal.Kanaris wrote:
Is it really so horrible that after two weeks of a hard won campaigning your nation accumulated enough VPs to unlock a 3rd slot? After month of conquering your rivals if you accumulated enough VPs for a 4th slot why not have access to it?
But still, I'll say it again, I am loving your idea!
This is EXACTLY why your proposal makes sense.Kanaris wrote:
Unless you tell me you do not find it paradoxal that a nation that spans half the globe has the same research capabilities as a nation with 10 provinces which is what is currently happening.
While I disagree with your implied assertion that one likely can't make a comeback from being behind (I've certainly proven that wrong many times), I think that integrating my proposal-adaptation from further up this post could mitigate this. By having a maximum of only one additional research slot per tech branch (and the original ones being universal), you could still keep technology based on a single branch from outgrowing all the others too much such that this avoids causing players to get steamrolled by their opponents...or, at least, not too easily....and not even too easily by those dependent on heavier amounts of Gold premium points.Kanaris wrote:
Lastly current research system is so restrictive that it forces you to choose a certain path and not dare deviate from it for risk of getting steamrolled. By the time you have researched your "must haves" there is no point researching the "nice to haves"90% of the time by this point wither you do research more or not its moot and makes very little difference in the situation you are faced with as you are already dominating or already dead.
Again, a point of disagreement. I would say that not technological availability, but rather, a lack of many players' strategic imagination, is the reason that most follow the same paths over and over again. For example, the fact that many use the Light Tank/Tactical Bomber (LT/TB) combination isn't because the tech choices push them into it, but because they see other players use it fairly effectively against other even-less imaginative players who can't fathom how to defend against those supposedly-overbalanced bombers and so these newer players want to emulate that....not realising that there are some players out there, like myself, who have no problem exploiting the LT/TB's weaknesses.Kanaris wrote:
A properly balanced research system should give you more options as your nation expands not force you down the same path over and over again
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3
10 Jul 2018, 22:14
Now you are being facetious....or, maybe you are onto something!NukeRaider33 wrote:
Sure, why not let them steal armies and provinces as well?Diabolical wrote:
Why not let Gold spies roll back research progress on current research projects?
Stealing armies might not be acceptable. However, sabotaging a single unit or damaging the health (morale) of a stack might fall under the purview of the "Military Sabotage" mission.
Though I don't claim that ADHD is a "disability", per se, it certainly makes life difficult in many ways. As an example, I am very absent-minded and I tend to hyperfocus on my chosen paths (not necessarily the "right" paths) which makes me prone to forgetting appointments, responsibilities, eating meals, etc. Ironically, that makes me better at this game than most people (hyperfocusing on it because of how much I love strategy games), however, it does cause me great struggles in my life and I have issues in the real world that I won't tell you about but that I also would wish upon no one because of how poorly my ADHD-colored interactions with the outside world can be.Quasi-duck wrote:
Lmao I don't need to read anymore. We can't say Dia is bad anymore because he is disabled, so we're going to have implement every feature he suggests. This is a bit like a blind taxi driver.
Though lots of people might claim to have ADHD and even more kids are thought to have ADHD simply because they aren't always perfect little students who sit still and hang on to their teacher's every word, the truth is that ADHD isn't really that widespread. It is a real condition that some people (myself included) have to live with and there are varying levels of how much or how badly the effects of ADHD can be. I, for one, would be said to have severe ADHD, and I laugh when other people just assume that they have ADHD simply because they have a little difficulty with some area of their life.
If you knew and understood fully about what having real ADD/ADHD meant for people like me, you wouldn't have made your little comment.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3
10 Jul 2018, 23:11
"White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
Jack London, White Fang
My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower
Jack London, White Fang
My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower
11 Jul 2018, 04:46
Diabolical wrote:
If you knew and understood fully about what having real ADD/ADHD meant for people like me, you wouldn't have made your little comment.
11 Jul 2018, 07:11
Ironically, that really made me laugh.
I think I hate you, now...lol.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3
11 Jul 2018, 09:52
You didn't before lol? Dw it isn't mutual.Diabolical wrote:
Ironically, that really made me laugh.I think I hate you, now...lol.
11 Jul 2018, 18:14
Re "AD/HD . . . Highway to . . . Hey, look, a squirrel!"
As anyone who has ever owned a Labrador retriever can easily appreciate, I thought that was the funniest meme I've seen in a long damn time.
11 Jul 2018, 18:46 (edited)
Wow, I've just been compared to a dog.MontanaBB wrote:
Re "AD/HD . . . Highway to . . . Hey, look, a squirrel!"As anyone who has ever owned a Labrador retriever can easily appreciate, I thought that was the funniest meme I've seen in a long damn time.
ROFL
Believe me, ADHD is not fun for me nor for others who suffer from it. But at least it's a funny disease and I can laugh at myself, this way. Ironically, I've noticed this behavior in others with more serious diseases....like cancer and kidney disease, for example. I've seen and known people with very poor health from such diseases who found that a good laugh meant more to them then all the fake sympathies put together.
My own mom is on the cusp of end-stage renal failure and is trying desperately not to have to get on dialysis. She needs a kidney and I'm trying to improve my own health so I can become a donor candidate. But in the meantime, we joke about her "kidney brain" because having toxin buildup can cause similar memory issues as so-called "chemo-brain"...something that a former pastor of ours occasionally had back when he was fighting cancer (and he was a good sport about it, too).
A side note: that pastor eventually died when his cancer came back from remission, but suffering as much as he did, and seeing the suffering of those along with him in the chemo ward helped him to find an even deeper understanding of God's passion for the infirm. His own experiences made him into one of the most emotionally empathetic people and passionate servants of God that I've ever known and I and my own family deeply miss him and are eternally grateful for his own personal efforts to help us during that terrible season when my father was dying. My pastor's own tragedy made him a better man and he took a vested personal interest in my family when we really needed someone.
Sorry to sour the mood. Though I'm glad to be able to get that off my chest. I was proud to know -- and always would happily tell others about -- Pastor Beals and the good work he did for his family and for others...and for God. That's just the kind of man he was.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3
16 Jul 2018, 17:27
Not true from my perspective we are limited by the two research slots from fielding creative armies. As an example on the 22 player map when I spawn in as Russia I would love to create a fleet in the north or Baltic sea and float it down towards Europe, while maintaining state of the art status throughout the game which would require a dedicate a slot to navy.Diabolical wrote:
Again, a point of disagreement. I would say that not technological availability, but rather, a lack of many players' strategic imagination, is the reason that most follow the same paths over and over again. For example, the fact that many use the Light Tank/Tactical Bomber (LT/TB) combination isn't because the tech choices push them into it, but because they see other players use it fairly effectively against other even-less imaginative players who can't fathom how to defend against those supposedly-overbalanced bombers and so these newer players want to emulate that....not realising that there are some players out there, like myself, who have no problem exploiting the LT/TB's weaknesses.Kanaris wrote:
A properly balanced research system should give you more options as your nation expands not force you down the same path over and over again
To do that with only the two available research slots is very counter productive, its like shooting myself in the foot, so of course I dont do it as I focus exclusively on my "must have" research (mostly ground and air) and forget about the "nice to have" navy.
The system I am advocating for, would allow me after 2 weeks of hard and successful campaign if I have gathered enough VPs by conquring Comm Russia, Baltic states, Caucassus etc, to gain my 3rd slot that I would elect to use it for fleet R&D.
Otherwise in the current system my 2 slots will remain fully booked until day 75-80. By then thinking of developing fleet is kind of a moot point. By the time I catch up and do all the required research to make the fleet state of the art with 2 slots only we are 3 months in.
18 Jul 2018, 23:24
But, by the third week of play, if you haven't gotten as far as you claim, by then, you'd be getting trounced anyway.Kanaris wrote:
The system I am advocating for, would allow me after 2 weeks of hard and successful campaign if I have gathered enough VPs by conquring Comm Russia, Baltic states, Caucassus etc, to gain my 3rd slot that I would elect to use it for fleet R&D.
But MY proposal gives you the option of having a navy AND an air force AND an army, since no one technical group can get more than two slots, anyway (1 slot per group, and 1 slot for anything).
So, you are pushing for my point, anyway.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3
19 Jul 2018, 11:14
First of all wether I am winning or losing in the first 2 weeks is not the point and your argument is meaningless and too case specific depending on various variables to have any merit at this juncture. We are discussing the merits of each proposal, our goal is to improve the overall experience not haggle over what if scenarios.
Back on point the problem with your proposal is that if all nations start with 5 research slots even if these slots are segregated per type of research it does not leave any room for growth. My nation at day 1 with 10 provinces has the same research capacity as my nation at day 40 that has 100 provinces.
Research wise you get no competitive advantage for growth over time. I am not saying that gameplay wise its not a whole new game starting with 5 slots instead of 2 from day 1 but it does nothing for competitive advantage over time due to having no growth potential.
A nation that spans half the globe compaired to a 10 province nation has a much bigger resource output, production capacity, etc, and should also have an advantage in research as well by having more slots. Unless I misunderstood your proposal does nothing to address this dicrepency.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
