Dan77

I'm still waiting for someone to argue with the figures in my post Seb tried but was proven incorrect. Everyone else who wants change ignored it because the figures don't lie.

That's their decision if they have more than 20,528 infra. A decision they have made to suit how they want to play. 1500-1600 infra per city is not low infra by any means. It's a very profitable build even with max military. As for the improvements, that's rubbish. I have 344 improvements. 20,500 infra can hold 410 improvements. They could have 66 more improvements than me and still hit me. Improvements aren't really important for this argument anyway as far as I'm concerned because once you have power and military you can fight. Anything else is a bonus and just because you can't build 2,000 infra with all the benefits that gives and not be able to attack people with my build doesn't mean that my build is unfair in any way.

I've just demonstrated that you can have 1579 infra per city and match military. That is very much a bit of both and is a typical Mensa build (or at least it was).

My score is 1489.23 It is made up from: 619.23 - military 300 - cities 40 - projects 530 - infrastructure I have 800 infra in 11 cities and 900 in the other 2. It's low but not ultra low. I wouldn't be able to maintain a high enough army if it was lower due to the recent (stupid) changes. My build is clearly military focused. With the way the current mechanics work, I can be declared upon by a nation with a score up to 1985.64 In the interests of comparing fairly and the current obsession people have with people attacking others with less cities let's assume someone has the same number of cities, the same number of projects and exactly the same military as me. That leaves them 1026.41 score to use on infrastructure. They could therefore have 20528 infra and still attack me (an average of 1579 infra per city). That is a significant amount of infra per city. They would also have more improvements and a better income than me. All whilst maintaining an identical military. Hardly defenceless is it?! If you need over 1500 infra, that's your choice but you're just being greedy really and why should you expect the existing game mechanics to change just to suit your greed. Keep a good standing military if you don't want to be raided. The amount of money floating around in the game is bad for it. It widens the gap between between players and in all games like this when you join and have no hope of getting anywhere near the majority of the existing players it is hard to have any kind of new player retention. The obsession with high infra is based on greed and the fact that people have been able to get away with it for too long. Sheepy has said before that there is too much money in the game and that's largely thanks to people focusing on infra. Adapt.

Terrible idea. This proposal just hands the advantage to the old and rich nations so they can continue to stack money and pixels whilst keeping military build nations away. A way for rich nations to dominate the game and become untouchable. Infrastructure is a choice. 2000 infrastructure per city is not a small amount. You make a lot of money from it. That's a choice. If you sat at 1000 infra then you could downdeclare on people but you choose to go for 2000 infra. I believe Sheepy wants less money knocking around in the game rather than more. That's partly why baseball was introduced (as a money sink). Less money in circulation also helps him to sell credits. Arrgh are performing a great service in this regard It seems plenty of people just want everybody to play in one boring farmville style way. Then it will be really, really boring. Ask yourselves why Arrgh haven't hit Mensa or The Syndicate. We're not invincible, far from it.

Well that's one way of dealing with us, at least temporarily A rather expensive way though. GG. ~$1.2m per city rebuild for me, assuming I go way up to 800 infra again

It's really annoying on mobile to try to copy and paste nation links, etc. It would be nice if the messaging system recognised a url and showed them as links. Thanks!

Depends if I can be bothered to do it. It's very labour and resource intensive the clunky way I do it. It basically breaks the internet to do over 4000 API calls in a google doc with my script. I'm also less inclined to spend my valuable time creating info and content for the community after the latest changes (if it was a quick job I would still do it though). I'm happy to share the formula with anyone who wants to take it on though if they are able to pull the data themselves. Ideally the leaderboards in game would be improved to do the job but failing that, there must be plenty of people who have these stats in a database of some kind. It's something that could be much more dynamic with the right interface. Would be great to be able to look at the scores for a period of time (ie the period of a war) but you would need a full history of daily stats for that.

I broke it. So many damn API calls.

Leave it broken please API ftw

Well oddly, not you by the looks of it. People are quitting because of the changes. It's also easier to hurt new players post changes. You've only made it worse.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "donations", idiot.

I doubt it. The maths wasn't even checked being as Sheepy got his tank caps wrong by 263%. Just a small issue though, let's gloss over that and pretend it's all as intended.

Thanks Sheepy. Another top quality player leaving because of ill thought out changes. You'll be missed Niemand. It's been a pleasure as always to play alongside you.

ITT people don't understand supply and demand. There is now more supply. Is there any more demand? Probably not.

You've made them more vulnerable though. It's not difficult maths. More tanks for the attacker and much more difficult to recover once you've been hit. You're sticking with this regardless of the facts out of pure stubbornness. You even admitted your figures are wrong after I pointed it out but seem to just shrug your shoulders and pretend everything is as intended.

I know 2 top quality players who are leaving because of these changes already. The only reason they haven't managed to go already is because: Delete Nation You received the following errors: You have sent a trade offer in the last 3 days and won't be able to delete your nation until you've had 3 consecutive days without using the market. I think more are about to follow. Having given it some serious thought and slept on it, I have come to the conclusion that these changes are still !@#$ing retarded! I mean even after basing them all on incorrect figures and having to have that pointed out to you, rather than revert to the previous caps that worked so well, you've just decided to roll with it and see what happens. Meanwhle you want people to spend more money on the game.

Remember when you agreed that Tywins figures and explanation was good? It was almost like common sense had prevailed and that you were regaining some faith in your game mechanics which were absolutely fine as they were. Instead, you appear to have concocted a new cap system based on wildly incorrect figures. Please revert to how it was before.

errr no. 1% of population could be tanks before the change. You've shown way, way more tanks than would have been possible in your examples. Helps explain why such bad decisions are made. Edit: This also applies to your subsequent post. Your tank figures are wrong.

Yeah, so like I said in my first post. This change very much damages new players. The whole reason given for changing the caps in the first place. I'm tempted to get people to sit at a similar build to that and hit every new player as they come into their range just to show you how terrible an idea this was.

This is ridiculous reasoning. For one thing, why even show the nation 1 uncapped figures? They were capped before and so this is wildly misleading. The build you're showing looks remarkably like mine again and I maxed out at around 5k tanks. Another crucial thing that you seem to be missing, is that should that 13 city nation attack a 6 city nation (not sure this actually happened), they won't be fighting them alone. Nations with more than 6 cities and higher military caps will be attacking them in response. Probably 3 of them at a time and from there with this terrible new setup, they are done for as many rounds as the attackers see fit. Battles aren't fought individually, they are fought between alliances. They also have no chance of rebuilding their infra to a suitable level while on beige (if anyone is actually stupid enough to beige them). It's a very poorly thought through change, probably brought about by the usual pixel huggers in that (not so) secret forum. Other peoples views and detailed reasoning (see Tywins well structured posts backed up by actual figures) are ignored.

And there's every chance a nation with higher infra will be along to destroy you before too long. Great change for new players eh?! Players can now even declare war and then buy up infra, increasing their caps. Don't worry though, you can always fight back. Oh, you can't actually because you'll be able to build even less army and will probably have negative income.

Horrible change. Potentially a game-wrecker as far as I'm concerned. We're just being forced to play in one boring way. Wars shouldn't be about infra bombing. They should be about winning and beiging the opponent. This just further discourages beiging and encourages infra bombing. People will just get pounded on until they give up and quit the game. Was your intention when you designed the game to have wars being closed or just to have people infra bomb and pass them on to others for another round of infra bombing? If it wasn't the latter, then why do this? Now there is a big advantage to those with more infra who are generating high income. If anything, this hurts new players who can't afford enough infra to support a decent army. Ironic really given that this was the fallacious argument given by many to introduce a change. If there was so much of an advantage to having ultra-low infra, why weren't more people doing it? Because it wasn't an advantage! Big sacrifices had to be made and now we have to live with those under a system that stops us from fighting back. I swear, any time somebody does something well in this game, changes have to be made to help out those who are unable to adapt or co-ordinate. Why must we base the formulas and rules on the lowest common denominator? Beginner mode activated.

If it was such an unbeatable strategy that it needed changing so badly, surely everyone would have been doing it. This change just panders to pixel huggers with bad city builds. Also, this is more likely to reduce credit purchases (I refuse to call them donations) than increase them.