Administrators Popular Post Alex Posted February 2, 2016 Administrators Popular Post Share Posted February 2, 2016 Why am I bringing this up? There are a number of nations with a very high city count, and low infra amount, that wield a very large military capacity but have a low score (because of low infrastructure) and are able to attack nations with half or less their military capacity. This is obviously unintended, as the point of the war range system is to keep the #1 nation from picking on noobs, and so forth in a more general sense. You shouldn't have to fight someone who's going to beat you 100% of the time. What are you proposing? I'm proposing a change to the score formula; specifically one that will value infrastructure less, cities, projects, and military units more. The formula currently makes infrastructure the largest determinant of your score, which as we can see through nations getting beat down and left with little infrastructure, is not a good main determinant. Shifting the balance toward military units and cities shifts the focus on your actual military capacity. What's the current score formula? Score = (Infrastructure / 20) + ((Cities - 1) * 25) + (Soldiers * 0.0005) + (Tanks * 0.02) + (Aircraft * 0.2) + (Ships * 1.5) + (Missiles * 5) + (Nukes * 15) + (Projects * 10) What's the proposed score formula? Score = (Infrastructure / 40) + ((Cities - 1) * 50) + (Soldiers * 0.0005) + (Tanks * 0.05) + (Aircraft * 0.5) + (Ships * 2) + (Missiles * 5) + (Nukes * 15) + (Projects * 20) So what's the gist of the changes? The changes as they're laid out values infrastructure as worth half as much as it is now, tanks considerably more (tanks are a very valuable unit), aircraft considerably more (another very valuable unit), ships more (ships are typically found only in larger nations. This will help keep ship-bearing nations and non-ship-bearing nations separated) and most importantly increases cities value by double, as well as projects. Why projects? Larger nations that have projects should probably not be competing against smaller nations that don't, so this helps separate them further. Why cities? Cities are the main indicators of military capacity. Increasing their value is what will keep nations with lots of cities from fighting nations with only a handful of cities. Why not value improvements as part of score? This was discussed, however I feel that this is not a good idea for the simple fact that if improvements are valued highly, a player that wants to declare war on a much smaller nation than themselves would only need to sell all of his/her improvements, declare war, and then rebuild the improvements. At least with the current system you can't sell infrastructure without selling improvements, and so the only way you can get down into the lower war ranges is by being beat down in war (which is pretty common with big alliance wars.) In the end, increasing the value of cities and actual military units should accomplish the same purpose, without being ripe for abuse like valuing improvements could be. Why are you posting such a well-written, in-depth post about this to everyone? Excellent question! The reason for all of this is that this is a pretty significant change, and I would really like to have the support of the community with me, instead of trying to force something down your throats. I want you recognize why we need this change, how it helps, and that it shouldn't be too drastic. Not too drastic, you say? Well, yes. This change in the formula will likely change your actual score considerably, but the absolute change is less important than the relative change. Relative to other nations, your score shouldn't change much, unless you're one of these outliers that has a lot of cities with very low infrastructure in each. In that case, your score will be increased significantly, and you should no longer be in range of nations who can field half as many military units as you can. I've done some testing on the test server, which has indicated the relative change is very small (for example, the test server leaderboards only shifted a hair, with the #2 and #3 nations swapping positions, and the same for the #9 and #10. No one was kicked off the leaderboards or anything drastic like that. So what can I do to help? Feel free to calculate what your new score would be, but keep in mind that everyone else's score will be changing as well, so it's hard to get a feel for the overall impact. But just try to think about this change logically, see the problem, see how this solves it, and help convince any dissenters that this is what's best for the game overall. And if it helps, imagine how frustrating it must be to fight someone with twice as many cities as you. Even if you max out all of your military improvements, they'll still be able to crush you, indefinitely until they rebuild infrastructure (which they might never do.) 24 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I see how it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pfeiffer Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 My peen will grow even more from military build? Sounds hot. Quote ☾☆ 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimitri Valko Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I'm skeptical... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isolatar Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Against it. Just because there are people who can't adapt to the situation in front of them, doesn't mean you should change it. Edited February 2, 2016 by Isolatar 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valakias Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) I approve of this. Infrastructure can't be the main factor behind score anymore, its simply too volatile. Edited February 2, 2016 by Valakias 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleccs Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 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 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnipotent Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I can't see the harm in this, go ahead with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiki Mod Dr Rush Posted February 2, 2016 Wiki Mod Share Posted February 2, 2016 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. 1 Quote 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 !@#$ing stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasolt Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TellUrGrlThx Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Approve. I don't need to explain myself. Quote ☾☆ 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„¸ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) YES! YES AND YES! I've been waiting for Sheepy to bring up this argument for so long. I approve of this wholeheartedly. Edited February 2, 2016 by Hooves 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isolatar Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Approve. I don't need to explain myself. I'd actually like to know why, and chances are, more people as well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpool Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 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) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan77 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) 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 February 2, 2016 by Dan77 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zodal Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 o/ I agree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woot Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 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 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TellUrGrlThx Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 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? 1 Quote ☾☆ 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„¸ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 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. 3 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pfeiffer Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 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. 2 Quote ☾☆ 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 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. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goomy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) 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 February 2, 2016 by Goomy 1 Quote "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 More sharing options...
Warpool Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hao Huiyu Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) 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 February 2, 2016 by Hao Huiyu Quote 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 More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted February 2, 2016 Author Administrators Share Posted February 2, 2016 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. 1 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.