Jump to content

Changing the Score Formula


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

My peen will grow even more from military build?

 

Sounds hot.

☾☆ Chairman Emeritus of Mensa HQ ☾☆

"It's not about the actual fish, themselves. Fish are not important in this context. It's about fish-ing, the act of fishing itself." -Jack O'Neill

iMZejv3.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like it, in a losing war where you're getting curb stomped you're only hope at retaliation is getting dropped to a point where you can regain the advantage. This change will only further give attackers an advantage and destroy our war system making them even more one sided. terrible change imo

  • Upvote 2
6XmKiC2.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record this has been in discussion with the CDD since the 4th of January & was opened by sheepy. So no it is not a reactionary change to the argg Mensa war.

  • Upvote 1

 

 

23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves

23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous

23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed

23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves

23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love

 

 

6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio

Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be &#33;@#&#036;ing stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it does kill options for smaller groups against gang-ups

 

Limits nation design options and styles of play.

Options equal more variety and more challenge.

 

-yawns- I dont want to log into a game and just watch pixel grass grow.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Approve. I don't need to explain myself.

☾☆

Priest of Dio


º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¸ GOD EMPEROR DIO BRANDO¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¸ DIO BRANDO GOD EMPEROR¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸

6m0xPQ1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like you need to remove the total military any nation can buy then. This is forcing a linear game. So if this change happens nations like mine would be forced to buy infra as my max tank count is like 4k and this would push my right in a convenient place to the Mensa babies? Silly changes get incoherent replies.

 

Also can changes like this be made post war? >.> Or some may see favoritism to the kittens... (Totally me)

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is silly.  The current war is an extreme example.

 

High cities and very low infra is not easily sustainable.

I've been operating on a -$1.2m income.

Also, because of population:

My max tanks has been around 4,250

Max troops around 85,000

 

The nations in this range can definitely cope with that if they are organised.  Even now the minimum score I can declare on is around 600 and I'm beaten down militarily right now.

 

I have been far from unbeatable in this range.  It just so happens that Mensa and SK were nicely assembled above our range and that we could pick them off one at a time with 3 co-ordinated attackers.  And when they sent people down in score who really should have beaten us, they did a bad job of it and attacked too many at once whilst allowing 3 of our nations to hit them at the same time.

 

This change will just mean that the larger alliances and those who try to dominate with loads of treaties (stifling the game) will be able to beat anyone else and keep them down forever.  This keeps the underdog down while the big boys can do what they want.  Another step towards farming pixels.  Don't do it!

Edited by Dan77
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a low score military focused build with 3 cities and it's impossible to make my military powerful enough at any score that other people at the high end of my range can't easily come and beat me.

 

I thought the population limits on military were how this was balanced, and the balance felt perfect to me, it was just restricted enough that I can't quite come up with anything overpowered.

 

If this change happens I think the entire idea of a military or raiding build will basically be obsolete, we'll all be identical pixel farmers.

 

shebby pls

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd actually like to know why, and chances are, more people as well.

 

The fact a 14 city nation can drop his score to hit a 9 city nation and rekt him is unfair. See it this way. A 14 city nation can build 3,500 tanks max per day and cap out at 17.5k (obviously his lower infra would stop him from doing so but a double build would put him in range to rekt any 9 city nation who can make 2,250 tanks a day max for a cap of 11,250. obviously 3500 tanks can beat 2,250 and in mass numbers of 14 city nations doing this they could easy declare double build and destroy any nation in their range. Change the military type and amount accordingly and you face the same situation.

 

Seems like you need to remove the total military any nation can buy then. This is forcing a linear game. So if this change happens nations like mine would be forced to buy infra as my max tank count is like 4k and this would push my right in a convenient place to the Mensa babies? Silly changes get incoherent replies.

 

Also can changes like this be made post war? >.> Or some may see favoritism to the kittens... (Totally me)

 

Mensa has never been the favored alliance of Sheepy. Everyone knows if anyone it is Rose.

 

This is silly.  The current war is an extreme example.

 

High cities and very low infra is not easily sustainable.

I've been operating on a -$1.2m income.

Also, because of population:

My max tanks has been around 4,250

Max troops around 85,000

 

The nations in this range can definitely cope with that if they are organised.  Even now the minimum score I can declare on is around 600 and I'm beaten down militarily right now.

 

I have been far from unbeatable in this range.  It just so happens that Mensa and SK were nicely assembled above our range and that we could pick them off one at a time with 3 co-ordinated attackers.  And when they sent people down in score who really should have beaten us, they did a bad job of it and attacked too many at once whilst allowing 3 of our nations to hit them at the same time.

 

This change will just mean that the larger alliances and those who try to dominate with loads of treaties (stifling the game) will be able to beat anyone else and keep them down forever.  This keeps the underdog down while the big boys can do what they want.  Another step towards farming pixels.  Don't do it!

 

You know in real life wars are won based on numbers and organization/strategy so obviously the alliance with more members should win the war.

 

Also: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=20317

You think that nation can easily beat you?

  • Upvote 1

☾☆

Priest of Dio


º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¸ GOD EMPEROR DIO BRANDO¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¸ DIO BRANDO GOD EMPEROR¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸

6m0xPQ1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the better option would be the improvement shutdown as infra is destroyed. With score determining who you can war, I'd be worried about how this affects lower and middle tiers. Pushing up people who aren't ready and what not.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The population limits don't affect planes, and the affect to tanks and soldiers mitigates but doesn't solve the problem of score squatting. It's been discussed for nearly the entire time I've played, but there needs to be a way to keep it from being a long term playstyle, else you make new players farms, which can easily sustain those with negative revenue at this range.

  • Upvote 2

☾☆ Chairman Emeritus of Mensa HQ ☾☆

"It's not about the actual fish, themselves. Fish are not important in this context. It's about fish-ing, the act of fishing itself." -Jack O'Neill

iMZejv3.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cripple the smaller side of the war even more eh? its already bad enough when you get outnumbered 4:1 or more, just because people are having difficulty coordinating and rotating there nations to take advantage of there massive numerical superiority doesn't mean you need to change the way war works. the more advantages it is to have massively lopsided wars the more lopsided they will get until every war is just a curb stomp. its heading that way as it is but at least now if you outplay your opponents after they beat you down some you have a chance to turn the tide. this will end comebacks in wars unless new people join them, and new people almost never join the losing side of a war.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After seeing a big debate on irc, having the current NS based war range, then having a secondary requirement that the target has +/-3 cities to to the attacking nation would be a better way.

Edited by Goomy
  • Upvote 1

"LMFAO nazi Goomy is the best Goomy" - Kyubey  "Goomy is Perfect" - Ripper

Some sort of gov for CoS

#RollBezzers2k18

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes and it's thanks to aa's like Mensa who focus on max plane damage not ga's/missiles to remove improvements. Having this go through would literally mean you would have to pass the Mensa bench to actually grow without them stopping you. Ideally leave to join the web or forever have them lording over you.

 

If you guys don't like it don't force people down there thinking they will build up for you to do it again. Not a fun thing when you want to grow to have asshats like Mensa and Co. just tear all infra you have away and put you back a month easily of play.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't knock it 'till you've tried it. You guys are saying how its going to ruin the game and it's balance, yet we don't even know how will change things. Why not give it a try, see how nations come out, and then you can discuss the merits of each forumla.

Edited by Hao Huiyu

First nation to 1,000 NS

First nation to 2,000 NS

First nation to 3,000 NS

First nation to 4,000 NS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I think the better option would be the improvement shutdown as infra is destroyed. With score determining who you can war, I'd be worried about how this affects lower and middle tiers. Pushing up people who aren't ready and what not.

 

That's not feasible, and ultimately just hurts the losers in a war more, which is not the intent.

 

The population limits don't affect planes, and the affect to tanks and soldiers mitigates but doesn't solve the problem of score squatting. It's been discussed for nearly the entire time I've played, but there needs to be a way to keep it from being a long term playstyle, else you make new players farms, which can easily sustain those with negative revenue at this range.

 

Perhaps a better solution would be population based caps on planes and ships as well.

  • Upvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.