Prefontaine

The main thing that needs to be decided on is what ratio is needed for the different aspects of score. It doesn't matter what numbers you associate with things, but what percentage of the whole. Here's one example of what I'm talking about: Thus, if you wanted a score set up that was Infra : Cities : Mil being 1 : 1 : 2 ratio it may look something like that. It's really the ratio balance you want to hammer down. Getting hung up on numbers is pointless compared to figuring out the ratio you'd want.

This is largely while I shelved the major score rework for this update. The team has had some long threads about score changes and ranges but I wanted this go first as score changes are a much easier tweak than this update/coding wise. This also have a much greater impact on the war system in how it works. Scores just determine who can fight who. Again, this is for testing, and if it's widely disliked its a very easy thing to roll-back. EDIT: To address the score change for cities in general: When changes that lower the score happen the people who don't like it typically come out to talk. When it gets raised people who don't like it come out to talk. Generally speaking with issues that have a decent amount of people on both sides, you're only going to get the unhappy party showing up to voice their concerns. This is a very small part of the big picture in terms of changes that is really easy to add or not.

It's something different. And by within the month I mean within a month from posting, so before the Holidays next month. My hope is to have it posted next week though, I'm giving some wiggle room though. Lots of discord convos, radio shows, there were some posts, regular design team convos, etc... There may not be a ton of forum posts but the general break down is Raiders/pirates want lower city score others either don't care or want cities returned to the higher rate. Cities used to be 50, then became 100, then went back to 75. If you want to see some of the feedback on it go look at the thread where the change happened. Yes, blockades isn't being touched. If Naval removing superiorities feels just a touch too powerful we may make it so that Navals can either blockade or remove a sup to slightly weaken the abilities.

Summer '23 is the target (if it's going to be implemented). Lets see how off we are!

The following changes are slated to be coded for the test server. When they are implemented a test server event will be held to test these features in mass. Achievements and Awards will be given in came for participation, finding bugs, etc... Not everything on this list will make it live, which is the point of the testing. A few items may be controversial, like a change to navy. If it's viewed as too powerful it can be tweaked. These changes are to eliminate wars from being decided in the first attack and eliminate beige cycling 64% of the game at the time of this poll wanted some change to the system. Additionally, the top two problems with war are both of the above issues. This system gives nations the option to rebuild and try to coordinate if they choose to. This change is to increase the time before a nation can be locked down with both ground and air superiorities in a war. The change to naval is to buff the importance of ships. It's bolded because it may be far too much of a buff and needs testing to determine. Regularly requested. There's been a more complex score change overhaul proposed, but if this change does enough, so be it. I'm shelving the score change for the moment in lieu of these other changes. The next big update we'll see if more changes to score calculations are needed. Didn't get a chance to really go through this with Village, and I don't want to speak for him or delay this thread further. So these changes will be implemented for testing. Apologies for the slow month or so from me. Life got very crazy for several weeks, but I'm back now. Some probably take that as bad news, but regardless I wanted provide context about the delays. Major Additions Coming Down The Line: Perks posted in the within the month (hopefully this coming week). Time unlocked nation benefits Commodities (yes, those) targeted for Summer '23.

Lets talk about up declares a bit. A common strat is to have the two smaller nations in the up declare smash into the bigger nation to clear the path enough for the largest of the players on the up declare to get the superiority. If this doesn't work due to unlucky rolls, then it's about grinding down the units/rebuy for the day so that you have a better chance at securing the superiority before rebuys refresh. If they can secure a 25% tank reduction through a partial superiority then that means unless the up declare is larger than 25% by the largest up declarer, they'll still have the tank advantage at that point. Basically the up declare strats are about trying to get at least one person to secure sup's but are also about having 3 players being able to rebuy units versus 1 and exhausting those rebuys. If the 1 goes offensive, they're also going to lose units which further helps the rebuy imbalance. The main area this for undeclares is something you didn't touch on, if the naval element is included, naval units are often the last to get dealt with. This could give an area for up declares to lose sups through the sea. In the OP it fully breaks it, but I'm definitely open to the idea of having it simply reduce it one level. Full Sup -> Partial and Partial -> None.

Just because you attack someone while while you have more people online than them you should win a war? How is that not still a numbers advantage? You get to line up your targets in a way that suits you, you get to strike first, you get to get the first chance at building superiorities. There's still plenty of advantage. If an enemy got anything other than an UF in the current system it would reset you 1 step, the 1 step to get back your sup. If that's your major issue we can talk about it doing the same, removing one step so a full goes to a partial and a partial goes to a none.

That was the idea, lets say your enemy wants to run a no ships build on a blitz, then they're exposed to losing their sups in that war if the enemy has ships. Why not?

I didn't picture it as doing so, but it's open for discussion of course.

With the feedback from this thread where the vote is currently 50% in favor of some change and 50 in favor of no change, that's enough to try and more detailed flesh out some of the concepts: Partial Superiorities: Two IT's are required to gain superiority over an opponent. This does not require consecutive, you can get a Pyrrhic, Moderate, etc... in-between the ITs. If the opponent get's a Pyrrhic Victory or better in that arena (ground v ground, air v air) then it breaks the partial or full superiority in that arena. Getting a partial superiority gives you half the benefit. The second IT ground attack only destroys 50% of what it would for planes. The third IT kills the full amount. The first IT air attack reduces tank effectiveness by 50% of the full superiority Additional ideas: To improve Naval use, an IT with naval units could reduce an Air Superiority by 1 step. If they only had a partial superiority it resets to zero, if they had a full superiority it reduces to partial. This only impacts air or ground separately, not both at once.

We're about 50/50 at the moment on wanting a change and not. If that remains somewhat accurate by Monday next week I'll put together some more concise versions of what this change could look like.

The beige changes address the sitting/map stacking side of things more. But the idea is still rolling around the the idea box.

I still look at basically all the "no change" vs all of the change options as totals in favor of some change or no change, but I get what you're saying.

It's why I stick around for a bit after posting the threads to answer questions. The problem with having something very in depth, is that we basically need to fully design it just about before going to public for feedback. I'll add a blurb in the next thread like this.

All things that can be discussed on how the finer points work if people are in favor of the general concept, or at least some form of a change.

Either options work. Could even do something cheeky to make naval useful, you need multiple non-utter failures to break Sup, or one Moderate/IT naval to break any Sup. Not a bad idea, appreciate the thoughts.

So does needing extra ITs to get the sup.

I'm open to any ideas. The downside of yours is that lets say your side blitzes, uses its MAPs and the other side waits and tries to get Sup's after the 6 hour timer sort of thing now with extra MAPs.

An idea to delay the "Wars being decided in the blitz" the idea to make ground superiority and air superiority to be gained after multiple Immense Triumphs instead of just one. Please vote in the poll. Thank you. This is specifically vague for a reason as to how it works as we're looking to see if the way superiorities work needs some tweaking.

I am looking at things from your point of view. I'm also asking you to try to look at things from mine. I explained the current thread, we're not looking to make changes to it as there is an alternative waiting in the wings. Once both threads are out we'll review further there. We've talked a little bit about the thread, removing the upswing buff and how an alternative are hard caps. If you'd like some examples of me going against what I think should be done, I'll snag some of those for you. I don't think people in beige should be spied at all. That didn't happen. I think there should be a hard bottom declare cap, we don't have it. I think land should be destroyable. It isn't. You're asking me to show times where my mind was changed, all you need is look at all the times changes don't happen. What I'm getting at is I don't overtly interact with the feedback in the manner you're looking for, but what I'm saying is I am doing what the core of what you're looking for is. I understand wanting the vocalization, I get what you're asking for, but I'm sorry, that's not me. All I'd do is feel fake, and like I'm giving everyone a cookie. Sometimes what I'll do is reach out to people on discord for a back and forth to hammer out their changes in more detail. This is more how I operate. This is why I say you need to meet somewhere in the middle I can tell you what currently happens, typically a member of a the dev team links a post and says "what about this?" and then it gets discussed. I also do things like have credits rewarded to nations for quality feedback from time to time, especially when they're someone who doesn't contribute too often to help encourage them. Telling someone that "good point, we'll review it" sets up an expectation. If we change it, great, if we don't "they didn't listen to me" still exists because we reviewed it and didn't agree. Are we understanding one another a little better now?

And what would go a long way towards that sort of feedback is what I described in the OP. Much of the feedback given when someone is against something to the effect of "This sucks, you're dumb". I wouldn't make these threads if I didn't want to have other points of view involved. Here's the thing with this current thread, it's one of two options we're looking at for the change the modifier and score adjustments. Once both are out there and we look at things that's when the review process really starts. For threads that have updated OP changes, what you're asking for does happen.

The feedback gets discussed by the team, changes typically get made in the threads OP or in the next version of the thread depending on the level of changes. Final draft change threads typically look like these:

The discussion threads are the transparency. Polls and the general topic threads are where the community becomes involved with the process. All content that comes through the design team goes through this process to include the community. Actual feedback is listened to. Not all is agreed with, though. It's how the process works. I would argue this statement is bias. We've had and have various leadership of alliances through the history of the team. I/We know how the game is played. What goes into planning and fighting wars. Where there are issues in the system. For your example, spy changes have just been on the back burner for a long time. Simple as that. Nothing's being snuck through. If it was trying to be, there wouldn't be so many threads about it.

I'm not sure how many people here work a job that requires you to be on-call, but sometimes when you get that 2AM call, you can't get back to sleep. Oddly, I find I do some of my best thinking after that happens. First, I want to start with saying, this is my fault. I've not policed this section of the forum very strictly. I don't like moderation of speech. We, however, have reached a tipping point. For most content changes/update discussions I receive some number of private messages on the matter, some in favor, some not. What's been happening more frequently is that people are doing so to avoid reprisal, or going against the mob, so to speak. Hearing people telling me that they want to express their opinion but are afraid to do so because they were directed to support an opposite opinion in the thread, and don't want to be yelled at by their alliance for not sharing that opinion is unacceptable. That they're afraid of being retaliated against in game for supporting a change their political rival is against. Before you ask, no, I'm not giving you their names or copies of their messages. When people come to me in confidence, I keep it that way even if outing it would benefit me. For those who remember me as a player, that was one of my core principals. Second, this toxicity has stifled proactive discussion. People don't want to come in to the conversation when it's name calling and insults. There have been multiple times where we've had to ask for feedback because the post was simply "this is garbage, you're all idiots". The point of these threads is to provide feedback, come up with new ideas. If all you're going to add is name calling and a tantrum, you're no longer going to be welcome at the table. I don't want people afraid to speak up because of the bullying, political or in-game retaliation. I've been attacked and mass denounced in game for posting discussion threads, which is fine for me, but other players care about their nation and still play the game. It's the reason other members of the team largely don't want to post threads because of the toxic responses given. Third, something to remember, the point of this section of the forum is to make the game better. We all have different ideas on what that means, but we're all working towards the same goal. Remember that when making a post. I'll be starting this process with the most recent thread and hiding the toxic un-productive posts. Going forward I'll simply be hiding similar posts and begin issuing warns for those who habitually fail to play nice. You may see some edits in other players thread with my name on it. That's me removing quotes from those hidden posts. tl;dr If you want to participate in the discussion forum, take the insults out of your post. Otherwise your posts will be removed.

The problem is that a C40 vs C30 would get a 12.5% reduction to kill rates against the C30, with their unit and rebuy advantage that's not going to turn the tide of the war, just slow the death rate of the C30 so that there may be time to find backup. Watering down to 5% or something of that effect has no real impact. To the second point, the current score rework discussion has a logarithmic growth curve capping out at 2500 infra. Sort of like how missiles/nukes stop providing score at some point. The idea is a 2:1:1 ratio of Mil : City : infra in terms of score.