Valdoroth

I think that's a very valid point. I didn't really factor in the score value of military as well. I think mil score had an inc some years ago, but as you outline in case 2 and 3, the mil is the bigger factor, not the city score. That being said, if the mil is inc linearly, you still end up with roughly the same gaps for the most part. So maybe the factors need to be more non-linear for all main score components, not just cities.

Well I will say you have really good points there. The combat system has never been balanced either. So that certainly doesn't help either.

Staying on topic, The main premise of the idea is that there the score per city was mostly fine for the game 6+ yrs ago when there wasn't many 10+ city gaps that couldn't be boosted easily to fill, while now there is. You can boost a nation to 20 cities in a week pretty easily, while you can't boost someone to 30 easily. If you compare cost-score ratios for all NS aspects, cities are the by far the worst ratio.

So, in most sim games that I've played (both browser and 4x), being in prolonged wars adds an attrition value or negative war impact of sorts. The idea is simple. On server reset the games checks if you're in a war. If yes, +1 point, if no then -2; visible on your nation page to only yourself, and via spy reports. Every certain amount of points, let's just say 2 weeks (14 points), your loot gains/damage output are reduced by 0.5%/5% (flat from the default 10%/100%). This does two things. 1. Makes war not always the most profitable when back-to-back non-stop, but not unprofitable if you just take a few breaks here and there. 2. Reduces the incentive of large-scale wars that uselessly go on for more than a month. These numbers are just examples, but even with this example it would take 20 weeks for your loot/dmg to be at half (50%) of the original. It won't be huge in the first month or two, but it adds up over time. (There's only 52wks in a year for those who don't remember) Seriously, most conflicts are basically resolved in about 2-4 weeks, and everything past that is just to "demoralize them to try to rebuild and retaliate", which tbh, rebuilding to fight again is a good chunk of the fun in the game. More frequent large wars that are half as long are more entertaining. Less drain over the long period, quicker to rebound and see which side recovered more efficiently.

This is an issue I raised some 2-3 5 years ago and still nothing changed. (Old post) There are players who enjoy this game still that have to deal with a possibility of being "down declared by someone with basically twice their military capacity, and frankly that's not fun. It's happened in every major war the past 5 years. Depositing is not an actual in-game feature. The fact that we have to do a bypassing method such as depositing in the first place is a highlight to the issue of piracy being the absolute best income in the game. It literally bypasses most of the game's design. You ofc don't want change bcs you utilize it daily and you don't care if others want to enjoy the other features of the game that you don't use. To show the math of the OP example: The cost to purchase city #26 should be: 695,025,000.00 (No benefits, and with ALL benefits is $365,398,125.00, which means you also spent another +700m worth of rss to buy the projects) The value of infrastructure purchased, starting from the amount 1,000.00 and ending at the amount 2,000.00 is $13,462,782.00 (x35 cities = $471,197,370) Score inc from +10 cities atm = +750 Score inc from 35000 (1000x35) infra = +8750 The other major issue is probably the declaration range. I think that an up-declare being higher is fine, while a down-declare being the same range is kinda silly I think. The point I made in the old post is that the cost to score ratio drops off so hard it's not even reasonable. Could even be stepped +15 every 15 cities as an example: Or less increases every 10 (step +10 every 10 cities) Edit by Pre to remove now hidden post quote.

So this has been a problem for years still. The score value from cities is still flat, and that in itself is a major issue. A guy with 25 cities @ 2k infra ea can be attacked by someone with 35 cities @ 1k infra ea. There's no military chance for the smaller guy to be able to win due to sheer military buying power of the more cities. It costs almost the same to buy 1000 infra in 35 cities from 1000 to 2000 infra than it does to buy the 26th city (assuming you have some discounts actually), and yet they have about the same nation score. This should NOT still be a problem. It's this reason alone that this game's 100% most profitable method isn't building your nation or trading anything (literally 2/3 of the game's mechanics), but is simply raiding. Not even real life is. There's literally no consequences for being in wars non-stop, where-as in anything actually close to a simulation there should be. That's a separate issue though. (Consider looking at a raiding degradation factor for being constantly in wars back-to-back, and it'll also help the large-scaled global wars be shorter with the same results) In short, the nation score needs to be non-linear, but an exponential (inverse log), or at least stepped linear scaling. Example of stepped could be every 5 cities each city score adds +20 additional for each city owned. Something simple, but effective. Again, this has been an issue for years that has never been addressed.

Honestly I don't even know why I bothered checking the forums and reading this. I figured there was some war starting when my attacks weren't raiders. GL I guess? I don't even know why I keep up with my nation in the first place.

I'm not sure how SK is participating when it's an AA of all pretty much retired players that haven't deleted their nations for some reason (seriously I don't know why I still maintain it. Pretty sure we're just getting raided for kicks. Not important rambling of bad game mechanic: The city tiering still stucks though. I have 24 cities and one of my attackers has 30. 27 to 24 ain't even bad, but 30 vs 24 is straight up diarrhea. Literally a 25% increase. That's an issue of how the scoring value of cities has always been horrible though and not scalar like it should have been 5yrs ago. #fixthegamesheepy Anyways, enjoy your war kiddos.

Interesting changes. I still think cities scoring needs to change some to increase as you have more instead of a flat value.

So basically copy Cybernations with a slight addition. Also on the main topic, removing beige will just cause more slot filling. There's literally no in-game system to say a micro not tied to any AA is or is not in an AA that slot fills is breaking any rules.

Great work to the obviously time consuming investigations and for enforcing standard rules that are in basically all games across the internet. To those involved in it, shame on you and you don't deserve a temporary ban. There's a reason Terms of Service exist. Good luck to everyone else that is still playing.

Says the guy playing a game that runs about 80% off of numbers. Statistics exist for a reason. They're not for the mathematically challenged though.

People will exploit that.

From what I've seen from years in these nation sims is that NPO has, ever since coming from CN, tried to pull CN's gameplay style into PW. Contrary to how some people argued/stated every bit of display over time has proven this to be true. NPO isn't alone in this cause either. They're just a larger component of it. Months long wars in a game that moves at 3x the pace of CN is atrocious and ruins this game. You can try to spin your words anyway you want, but actions all point to the fact that this game has become extremely boring due to the community. You can bash on the relatively large issues the game still has, but many of these issues are still exploited by those that can, instead of having even and ounce of integrity. These forums are equally dismal. Too much trolling and not enough actual playing. This game can only be fixed by the players. Good luck!

I'm not your friend and I don't need your sass. I just prefer to read less cancer on the OWF. It's just a dream though I guess. There's reasons why this game has become as it has, and stuff like this doesn't help. You of all people should know that. You've been here long enough.

This should be retracted. Credits should also be reduced trade-in value. Really if anything, the thing PW suffers mostly from is no hard resets.

A 3 hour war... This thread seems more like spam to me. Can we keep the forums a bit more professional please?

I've learned that it's better to not trust anything anyone says. Least of all anyone with a big head or inflated ego. Just typing sophisticated doesn't make one smart.

I'm more surprised that parti is still playing this game. I don't even know why I am still, which surprises me just as much. GF I suppose.

I don't get the crossover. Too new age I think. GL I guess?

Lol. Guy deletes his nation. What a sap. Why am I still playing this game though? No one knows how to war anymore anyways.

I went on a half-deployment at the start of the war and back before the end (lol). From my observation and knowing PW mechanics (that haven't changed since it's inception), it only took about 3 months more than needed. We coulda' already been through an entire second war after recovery of the first one by now just for kicks or to keep the game more interesting. Good fight to all involved though. Cheers to better futures~~ Oya! o/

Agreed for the city manager. This would vastly speed up my current system in-place that pulls all my alliance cities. Or just convert the individual cities into just the city manager with all relevant info. I doubt most people have much use of only a single city's data rather than all the cities in a nation.

Exactly right. About 110% jealous. Divided by the number of cares I give (hint: cares given < 1) Am I not allowed to give flak and not be complained at too? That's alliance-ist!!

So the war was about 50-59 days too long. Nice work guys. You really showed them up! Give yourselves a large pat on the back.