View Full Version: Change NS range for war on top nations

Cyber Nations Forums > Suggestion Box > Change NS range for war on top nations

Pages: [1] 2

Title: Change NS range for war on top nations
Description: From 30k+ to 50k or 40k+


WarriorConcept - June 28, 2007 02:27 AM (GMT)
We have as many 50k+ nations as we did 30k+ nations when admin decided to implement the new rule that any 30k+ nation can attack anyone over that, meaning a 30k nation can attack an 80k nation. I think he made that rule when he saw how many few nations those top ones could fight but I think now it's time to update this rule with the growing cyberverse where we have multiple nations already breaking 100k NS.

Edit: There are a little over 150 nations over 50k
There are about 400 nations over 40k

Tchort - June 28, 2007 02:28 AM (GMT)
:clap: :clap: :clap:

I approve of this proposal.

FlipWich - June 28, 2007 02:28 AM (GMT)
I like making it 40k size. Save 50k for when nations get even stronger.

King C - June 28, 2007 02:31 AM (GMT)
40-entante

I support

SoonerNation - June 28, 2007 02:33 AM (GMT)
50K

Jason8 - June 28, 2007 02:35 AM (GMT)
I chose 40k.

Maybe instead of setting a NS requirement, maybe it should be the top 1% of all nations or so (I don't know how that percentage would figure, just pulled a number outta my ass). That would work the same magic the nuclear range is, and would require (in theory) no future adjustments.

Might be a better longterm shot.

Kaiser - June 28, 2007 02:35 AM (GMT)
45k to make it about 300 nations

Ditocoaf - June 28, 2007 02:58 AM (GMT)
Why not just make it so that anyone can attack any stronger nation, but nobody can attack nations weaker than half their strength? I don't see why I shouldn't be able to attack the strongest nation... it would be incredibly stupid, but I don't see why not.

EDIT: another thought
It would provide a different way for rouges to leave the game-- attack a much stronger country, and watch your old country be destroyed. It might be more interesting to them than just attacking some random country and being wiped out in the alliance backlash, and it's self-destructive for the sake of entertainment, rather than cruel for the sake of entertainment.

Amnesiasoft - June 28, 2007 03:36 AM (GMT)
I thought it was at 20k...but either way, it's fine by me to go to either one. Though 40k would probably be the better of the two.

Frujargh the Zombie - June 28, 2007 03:37 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Ditocoaf @ Jun 27 2007, 08:58 PM)
Why not just make it so that anyone can attack any stronger nation, but nobody can attack nations weaker than half their strength? I don't see why I shouldn't be able to attack the strongest nation... it would be incredibly stupid, but I don't see why not.

EDIT: another thought
It would provide a different way for rouges to leave the game-- attack a much stronger country, and watch your old country be destroyed. It might be more interesting to them than just attacking some random country and being wiped out in the alliance backlash, and it's self-destructive for the sake of entertainment, rather than cruel for the sake of entertainment.

Because it would be annoying for the big nation.

Perhaps we should make it so if you pm a nation bigger than you they can attack you. I would LOVE that rule.

I would shoot for 50k. That way admin wouldn't have to change it again for 6+ months.

Lukas - June 28, 2007 10:39 AM (GMT)
Bad idea. Nation Strength is a pretty bogus measure of real fighting strength anyway, but above 30k it's mostly tech, land and infra that barely pays for itself.

RedAlert - June 28, 2007 11:21 AM (GMT)
Good idea. 50k is best.

alpreb - June 28, 2007 11:24 AM (GMT)
What is actually wrong with the 50%-200% rule everybody under 30k lives with. There are still plenty of targets to hit.

Bob Janova - June 28, 2007 11:26 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Jason8 @ Jun 27 2007, 08:35 PM)
I chose 40k.

Maybe instead of setting a NS requirement, maybe it should be the top 1% of all nations or so (I don't know how that percentage would figure, just pulled a number outta my ass). That would work the same magic the nuclear range is, and would require (in theory) no future adjustments.

Might be a better longterm shot.

I agree with the sentiments expressed in this post, and thus I have quoted it.

Fraternite - June 28, 2007 12:05 PM (GMT)
NS is broken -- frankly, infra-heavy 30k nations are stronger than tech-padding 70k nations.

The NS range beyond which one can declare should stay at 30k -- this is about 4k infra if your nation isn't bloated and real war strength beyond that depends on infra level (deployable soldiers), not tech. If NS actually measured nation strength and tech were worth 5 NS instead of 20, then I would support this change.

As it stands, though, this is bad.

Epitaph - June 28, 2007 05:00 PM (GMT)
A 30k nation makes just about as much as an 80k nation so I don't really see the point. The only thing about a war with a 30k nation vs a 80k nations is that the stronger nation will have a lot more population and soldiers. :/ I voted for 40k+

Drai - June 28, 2007 05:36 PM (GMT)
I think 50k would be good.

(DAC)Syzygy - June 28, 2007 05:39 PM (GMT)
well the only problem with an unlimited NS range is that a very small 1k NS nation could just attack a 120k NS nation with 2 CMs every day, destroying dozens of millions worth in infra, while the 120k NS nation could do NOTHING to prevent that.

i would prefer a system where u could declare as high as u want, but only down to 75% of your own strength (to prevent newbie stomping). on the other hand i would give techlevel an constant effect on ALL weaponry. CMs shot from a 10tech nation against a 2000tech nation would just not hit, because they would intercepted before even reaching a target. on the other hand, the CMs from the 2000tech nation would do up to x times the damage against the lowtech nation, because their hits would only hurt the most important targets with awesome efficiency.

Simple System for tech-effect on CM/Aircraft/Nuke performance:

Defending nations techlevel between 75% and 150% of the attacking nations tech:
- normal military performance

Defending nations techlevel between 150% and 200% of the attacking nations tech:
- 25% of CM attacks fail (missile intercepted)
- damage of sucessfull CM hits reduced by 25%
- Attacking Aircraft losses increased by 25%
- 25% of nuclear attacks fail (missile intercepted)

Defending nations techlevel above 200% of the attacking nations tech:
- 50% of CM attacks fail (missile intercepted)
- damage of sucessfull CM hits reduced by 50%
- Attacking Aircraft losses increased by 50%
- 50% of nuclear attacks fail (missile intercepted)

Defending nations techlevel between 50% and 75% of the attacking nations tech:
- damage of sucessfull CM hits increased by 25%
- Defending Aircraft losses increased by 25%

Defending nations techlevel below 50% of the attacking nations tech:
- damage of sucessfull CM hits increased by 50%
- Defending Aircraft losses increased by 50%


Examples: 6k NS nation (A) with 100tech, CMs, no MD/Sats attacks a 80k NS nation (B) with 5MDs/5Sats and 2.000tech.

-> CMs from A against B would fail to 50%, sucessfull hits would do 10-50%=5 (MD modificator) -50% = 2.5 (tech advantage) damage. So Nation B would take on average 2.5 infra damage per day from Nation A.

-> CMs from B against A would hit every time, successfull hits would do 10+50%=15 (MD modificator) +50% = 22.5 (tech advantage) damage. So nation A would take on average 45 infra damage per day from Nation B.

So after all, the 6k NS nation would be defeated pretty quicky (just realistic against a 80k NS nation) and the damage it could do is insignificant. Together with the inability to launch successfull airstrikes or ground battles against the big nation while taking full damage every day, it would not be lucrative any more to send small nations against very big nations to exchange own cheap infra vs very expensive infra.

with this system all limitations of "upward attackings" could be removed from the game, only a 75% NS "downwards" limit should stay for protecting newbs from highlevel nations.

Drai - June 28, 2007 05:40 PM (GMT)
^Wow, that was an amazing post, and I agree with pretty much all of it.

Delta1212 - June 28, 2007 07:02 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Fraternite @ Jun 28 2007, 06:05 AM)
NS is broken -- frankly, infra-heavy 30k nations are stronger than tech-padding 70k nations.

The NS range beyond which one can declare should stay at 30k -- this is about 4k infra if your nation isn't bloated and real war strength beyond that depends on infra level (deployable soldiers), not tech. If NS actually measured nation strength and tech were worth 5 NS instead of 20, then I would support this change.

As it stands, though, this is bad.

30k NS is about 5k infra for me, but I'm quite infra heavy.

I'd update it to 50k NS, at least until a truly better sloution comes along.

EMATO - June 28, 2007 07:22 PM (GMT)
i say raise it to 50k

i find it rediculous that a 30k nation can attack the top nation in the game that is 120k+
(4x stronger)

Rich333 - June 29, 2007 01:51 AM (GMT)
QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 28 2007, 01:39 PM)
well the only problem with an unlimited NS range is that a very small 1k NS nation could just attack a 120k NS nation with 2 CMs every day, destroying dozens of millions worth in infra, while the 120k NS nation could do NOTHING to prevent that.

What are you talking about? What does anything in this thread have to do with anything you just said?

How exactly does a 1k NS nation declare war on a 120k NS nation?



QUOTE (EMATO @ Jun 28 2007, 03:22 PM)
i say raise it to 50k

i find it rediculous that a 30k nation can attack the top nation in the game that is 120k+
(4x stronger)

I find it ridiculous that people who are nowhere near the top ranks think they should comment on things they know nothing about.

How exactly is a 120k NS nation four times stronger than a 30k NS nation?

Tech above level 300 has absolutely no military value, so that's only 6k NS right there that counts towards actual military strength.

That leaves 24k NS just to make it to 30k NS.

Let's assume 1/6 of that is land, and 5/6 is infrastructure. That's over 2600 land and nearly 6700 infrastructure; and that is just to get to 30k NS.

A nation can't possibly get to 120k NS without grossly artificially inflating its NS with technology. In war, there is no significant difference between a 30k NS nation and a 120k NS nation.


QUOTE (WarriorConcept @ Jun 27 2007, 10:27 PM)
I think he made that rule when he saw how many few nations those top ones could fight but I think now it's time to update this rule with the growing cyberverse where we have multiple nations already breaking 100k NS.

No, he made that rule when he saw that there was no actual militarily significant difference between nations above 30k NS. The only reason to change it is to make those who are already at the top of the NS ranks essentially untouchable, even from others who are just as powerful in terms of actual military strength, and that isn't a good reason.

Crymson - June 29, 2007 02:18 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (WarriorConcept @ Jun 27 2007, 08:27 PM)
We have as many 50k+ nations as we did 30k+ nations when admin decided to implement the new rule that any 30k+ nation can attack anyone over that, meaning a 30k nation can attack an 80k nation. I think he made that rule when he saw how many few nations those top ones could fight but I think now it's time to update this rule with the growing cyberverse where we have multiple nations already breaking 100k NS.

Edit: There are a little over 150 nations over 50k
There are about 400 nations over 40k

This sounds like a good idea.

jazzy - June 29, 2007 02:27 AM (GMT)
Look at this for example

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=22722

he was a 30k NS guy with 20 nukes and @#$%loads of cash in hand, then he declared on 3 top GPA nations and then sold off all his infra and is nuking them all once a day

This is why the limit should be raised.

(DAC)Syzygy - June 29, 2007 04:48 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Rich333 @ Jun 28 2007, 07:51 PM)
What are you talking about? What does anything in this thread have to do with anything you just said?

How exactly does a 1k NS nation declare war on a 120k NS nation?

the thread is about "NS range for declaring wars", more specifically in the top ranks. my answer explained that with the current system of military performance, such a limit is definitely needed because otherwise very low NS nations could do overwhelming damage to absolute top nations.

my suggestion was, to get rid of such limits alltogether and instead adapting the system of military performance in a way that such limits are not longer needed, while improving realism too. all this with very simple coding and no need to set any "artificial" limitations to your ability to declare war. with my suggestion, u could declare as high up as u want (what is possible in RL too), but would get stomped pretty easily without dealing much damage (what would be the RL consequence too).

In most cases, artificial limits are doing a game no good, while self-adapting balance systems do. so just re-read what i have suggested and then tell me again it is worse then setting some limit to some fixed number which has to be constantly re-adapted as the nations of CN grow.

Rich333 - June 29, 2007 05:15 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (jazzy @ Jun 28 2007, 10:27 PM)
Look at this for example

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=22722

he was a 30k NS guy with 20 nukes and @#$%loads of cash in hand, then he declared on 3 top GPA nations and then sold off all his infra and is nuking them all once a day

This is why the limit should be raised.

That's a worthless example. What if a 50k NS nation did that? Same thing, and all it takes is a bit more tech. Besides that, it takes months to get up to that level so if he ZI'd himself he can't remain a threat for very long, and those GPA nations will recover.


QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 29 2007, 12:48 AM)
In most cases, artificial limits are doing a game no good, while self-adapting balance systems do. so just re-read what i have suggested and then tell me again it is worse then setting some limit to some fixed number which has to be constantly re-adapted as the nations of CN grow.

The limits are fine as-is, and they do NOT have to be constantly re-adapted, because the actual military strength of nations above 30k NS is all about the same. The only reason people call for the limits to be changed is that they want the very top ranks to become completely untouchable, and those top ranks are only the top ranks because they've spent months artificially inflating their NS with tech. There's no valid reason for them to be made untouchable.

(DAC)Syzygy - June 29, 2007 06:44 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Rich333 @ Jun 28 2007, 11:15 PM)
The limits are fine as-is, and they do NOT have to be constantly re-adapted, because the actual military strength of nations above 30k NS is all about the same.

sorry but thats simply not true. just compare 30k and 80k nations (30k could attack upwards to 60 with the 50% rule, so 80k would be above their range, but not THAT much as for example 120k would be):

Average Infralevel of ALL nations between 30.000 and 30.999 NS in the game: 4253,91
Average Infralevel of ALL nations between 80.000 and 89.999 NS in the game: 7368,15

Average Amount of National Wonders for a 30k Nation: 0,68
Average Amount of National Wonders for a 80k Nation: 4,10

Nations of 30k with 5Sats+5MDs: >10%
Nations of 80k with 5Sats+5MDs: <80%

Sorry, but believe it or not, 80k nations have on average almost twice the daily profit of a 30k nation, 80% more population and therefor soldier count if they must and a 70% higher possibility of maintaining 5Sats+5MDs without sacrificing any income-related improvement. They have a AWESOME higher military strength then a 30k nation.

Not even counted that the 30k nation will long be ZId or dropped below 300tech, when the 80k nation would still stand on some thousand infra and several hundred techlevels in a direct fight.

The reason why they SHOULD have protection from lower ranked nations is not to make them "untouchable", the reason is that the costs for infra EXPLODE in their regions and a 30k nations can destroy infra for hundreds of millions of $, even much more then the own nation is worth while batteling 3 80k nations. In reality The Netherlands would be totally defeated and occupied after some days, unable to do more damage if they should declare on the UK, France and Germany at the same time - and that is CORRECT that way. Thats why i say remove all limits of declaration, but give high-tech nations a clear military advantage over low tech nations. Its just like sending cavallery against tanks, they would all die while doing no damage, this would be the fact if a 300tech nation attacks a 3000tech nation, only in other dimensions. Exactly the reason for my suggestion.

The Russian Empire - June 29, 2007 06:50 AM (GMT)
My vote's gone to 50k+.

~TRE

Rich333 - June 29, 2007 06:57 AM (GMT)
QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 29 2007, 02:44 AM)
Average Infralevel of ALL nations between 30.000 and 30.999 NS in the game: 4253,91
Average Infralevel of ALL nations between 80.000 and 89.999 NS in the game: 7368,15

Average Amount of National Wonders for a 30k Nation: 0,68
Average Amount of National Wonders for a 80k Nation: 4,10

Nations of 30k with 5Sats+5MDs: >10%
Nations of 80k with 5Sats+5MDs: <80%

How exactly are averages valid? I have above the average infra you list, well above the average number of wonders you list, 5 MDs and 5 Sats. And I've only got a little above 35k NS.

(DAC)Syzygy - June 29, 2007 07:23 AM (GMT)
yes. then u are one example for which the rules may be good. for the 99 other nations of that range, they are bad. games should be balanced for the average player, not for the one specialist who has a setup that is totally uncommon.

Rich333 - June 29, 2007 07:36 AM (GMT)
QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 29 2007, 03:23 AM)
yes. then u are one example for which the rules may be good. for the 99 other nations of that range, they are bad. games should be balanced for the average player, not for the one specialist who has a setup that is totally uncommon.

I don't see any proof that I'm a one-percenter. All you did was post averages. Half the nations have more than the average, and half below it, in any range. That means half of those 80k nations are below average, and half of those 30k nations are above average, meaning about half of the total are well-suited to each other. That said, even the above average 80k nations aren't generally more than twice the real strength of the below average 30k nations, and so it's not really a big difference from the 200/50 rule.

Also, so what if some 30k nations could do far more damage, in simple dollar terms, to some 80k nations than they can receive? If they can do that much more damage in terms of the dollar cost of what's destroyed, that also means those 80k nations are much bigger earners, and have the capacity to field a much larger force of soldiers. You're trying to create the illusion of a problem where there really isn't one.

(DAC)Syzygy - June 29, 2007 07:58 AM (GMT)
well if u just deny the facts, then i cant prolong this dicsussion. its not like the stats say that 50% of the 30k nations have 3000infra and 50% have 5000infra so the average is 4000. the vast majority of these nations are around the average level. same goes for the 80k nations. Average values are just a good way to take a look at "normal" conditions for different scenarios. Every RL government, every ensurance company and every business trust is working with average values to estimate the most likely scenario, and this way has proven to be a good way million times. nations with ~30k NS and 5 or 6 national wonders + 5MD+5Sats infra like yours are just rare, compared to the total amount of 30k nations, what is the reason that your own nation is not the best example to "proof" why a 30k nation has the same battle performance like a 80k nation. Because for the majority of the players it is simply not true.

your second chapter is exactly the reason why highlevel nations should have the clear military advantage above lowlevel nations when the difference in strength (name it: technological advantage) is THAT high. its just not realistic that the netherlands could beat germany in a war, only by "causing higher dollar damage", its just nonsense, because they would be military owned within some days and thats it then with all the damage, they could not deal any damage at all, compared to the size of their opponent. just imagining that the 30k nation would take 2 CM hits (2x10 damage) = 20damage, for 40k$ per infralevel (=800k damage overall) while the 80k nation would suffer also 20damage for 160k$ per infralevel (3.200k damage overall) is purely nonsense, because a nation with 3000tech could FOR SURE intercept CMs from a nation with only one TENTH the technology level. Again, its like launching a catapult attack against heavy artillery or cavemen with sticks against navy seals. The military force of a ten times more advanced nation would cut throug the ranks and infra of a ten times lower opponent like a hot knife trough butter, and the game should just reflect that.

Rich333 - June 29, 2007 08:31 AM (GMT)
QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 29 2007, 03:58 AM)
well if u just deny the facts, then i cant prolong this dicsussion

What facts am I denying?

QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 29 2007, 03:58 AM)
its not like the stats say that 50% of the 30k nations have 3000infra and 50% have 5000infra so the average is 4000. the vast majority of these nations are around the average level.

The average you posted is around 4250 infra. Double that would be 8500 infra, which is far less than the 80k average you provided.

QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 29 2007, 03:58 AM)
same goes for the 80k nations

Such nations only have 7350 infra on average, which is far less than double the infrastructure of the 30k nations. With far less than twice the average infrastructure of the 30k nations, they have far less than double the population on average. This isn't Lichtenstein versus the United States; it's not a country of hundreds of millions against a country of a few million. These are countries that are very close to each other in size and development.

QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 29 2007, 03:58 AM)
Average values are just a good way to take a look at "normal" conditions for different scenarios. Every RL government, every ensurance company and every business trust is working with average values to estimate the most likely scenario, and this way has proven to be a good way million times. nations with ~30k NS and 5 or 6 national wonders + 5MD+5Sats infra like yours are just rare, compared to the total amount of 30k nations, what is the reason that your own nation is not the best example to "proof" why a 30k nation has the same battle performance like a 80k nation. Because for the majority of the players it is simply not true.

And that's irrelevant, because there's nothing in the war engine that does or should require that countries be on an even footing before going to war; they just have to be within half or double the strength of each other, and we're dealing with a much smaller gap in actual strength than that here.

QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 29 2007, 03:58 AM)
your second chapter is exactly the reason why highlevel nations should have the clear military advantage above lowlevel nations when the difference in strength (name it: technological advantage) is THAT high. its just not realistic that the netherlands could beat germany in a war, only by "causing higher dollar damage", its just nonsense, because they would be military owned within some days and thats it then with all the damage, they could not deal any damage at all, compared to the size of their opponent.

Your example is bogus. A much better real world example would be France and Spain going to war. And as for technology, it's absolutely useless above 300 tech when it comes to military matters, so on that end these are nations that are technological equals.

QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 29 2007, 03:58 AM)
just imagining that the 30k nation would take 2 CM hits (2x10 damage) = 20damage, for 40k$ per infralevel

With the average you cited, it'd be closer to $75k per level.

QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 29 2007, 03:58 AM)
(=800k damage overall) while the 80k nation would suffer also 20damage for 160k$ per infralevel (3.200k damage overall) is purely nonsense

No it isn't. If you drop a MOAB on a highly developed area, you're going to cause massive financial damage. Do the same to some relatively undeveloped area and you're going to cause far less financial damage. A nation with a larger population and more infrastructure is going to suffer more financial damage from the same use of force.

QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 29 2007, 03:58 AM)
because a nation with 3000tech could FOR SURE intercept CMs

Now you're bringing in things that are completely irrelevant. A nation with 3000 technology has absolutely no military advantage over a 300 tech nation, so how is a greater technology level relevant to this argument? Your entire argument is based on the false assertion that the lower ranked nation's military is completely inferior to the military of the higher ranked one, yet the fact of the matter is that they're very close in actual military strength.

QUOTE ((DAC)Syzygy @ Jun 29 2007, 03:58 AM)
from a nation with only one TENTH the technology level. Again, its like launching a catapult attack against heavy artillery or cavemen with sticks against navy seals. The military force of a ten times more advanced nation would cut throug the ranks and infra of a ten times lower opponent like a hot knife trough butter, and the game should just reflect that.

Then go suggest a change to technology.

Euroslavia - June 29, 2007 09:14 AM (GMT)
This idea will be one of the three next suggested discussions, for the possibility of being implemented. I'll make a discussion thread tomorrow.

(DAC)Syzygy - June 29, 2007 09:25 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Rich333 @ Jun 29 2007, 02:31 AM)
Stuff
+
Then go suggest a change to technology.

that is exactly what i have done as good alternative instead of the "changing the limits" idea which was originally posted.

my solution would a) give technology a real meaning, even above 300 levels, b) entirely removes the need for declaration limitation upwards (which is the main point of this thread) and c) effectively protects very advanced nations from being hit overly hard by lowlevel nations who just exchange cheap infra vs expensive infra and still hurting their opponents more then they lose themselves, while being totally outnumbered, outgunned and outteched.

also my examples are fine, because 1 level of infra for a 4250infra nation (average value) with a good trade setup and 5factories cost almost exactly 47k, while 1 level of infra for a 7360infra nation (average value) with EXACTLY THE SAME SETUP in trades and 5 factories cost almost exactly 163k. if u do not believe it, do the math by using fereipirs formuals from the gameplay discussion board.

overall, not one of your examples is based on hard facts or proven numbers. i do mine with simply using the ingame mechanic formulas. try to do the same. I never said a 80k nation has twice the population then a 30k nation. The average 80k nation has a 73% infra advantage compared to the average 30k nation, and since both nations have all population-increasing improvements, the population-advantage is ALSO +73%. After that, the 80k infra nations usually have a lot more national wonders, that could easily add another 8% population (NRL + DRA). +8% pop for a 7360infra nation is just another awesome advantage in income and possible troop amount. Thats almost exactly the ~80% pop advantage i have pointed out 2 posts before.

lanowar430888 - June 29, 2007 10:27 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Euroslavia @ Jun 29 2007, 03:14 AM)
This idea will be one of the three next suggested discussions, for the possibility of being implemented. I'll make a discussion thread tomorrow.

YAYY,,, this would be a great implement to the game

WarriorConcept - June 30, 2007 03:59 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Euroslavia @ Jun 29 2007, 05:14 AM)
This idea will be one of the three next suggested discussions, for the possibility of being implemented. I'll make a discussion thread tomorrow.

Rawr, I win :v

Eightball - June 30, 2007 05:18 AM (GMT)
Oh great. :rolleyes: Maybe official activity in this thread isn't a good idea.

FlipWich - June 30, 2007 05:57 PM (GMT)
I like this idea lots.

king_srqt - June 30, 2007 05:58 PM (GMT)
Makes sense to me




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree