Jump to content

Changing the Score Formula


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

 

Like Vietnam?  Or Syria?

 

No that one guy at the bottom of my range can't beat me.  Similar examples apply for most of the people in the game though.  That's why we have alliances.  Mensa's co-ordinated attacks should have beaten me though.  You guys just messed it up a little.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll go from 1,104.10 to 1226.50

 

Thats nice.

Edited by Prezyan
  • Upvote 2

 

 

Psweet> pro-tip: don't listen to baronus if Prezyan disagrees with him

5:48 AM — +Eva-Beatrice sq**rts all over the walls

Eva-Beatrice> I'd let Sintiya conquer me anyday x)

10:56 PM — +Eva-Beatrice m*st*rb*tes in front of Prezyan

12:13 AM — +Eva-Beatrice has no one to [email protected]#$ :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Okay, so here's the thing. The current controls on this WORK. Here's how. 

 

I'm a 12 city nation. I'm built to 4300 infrastructure usually. My tank max is 4500(EQUAL TO 4 CITY nation cap) . My soldier cap is 90000(equal to 6 city nation cap). My air is 1080 max. I'm at around 850 score fully built. 

 

Other people in this range have mostly 8-9 cities who can declare on me with ease. That means, 11250 TANK CAP, and 810 planes CAP for people who CAN hit me. 

 

Anyone in my range, when fully built, can easily get a ground attack on me, getting ground control and reducing me to 712 planes. 3 people hitting me can easily take me out. 

 

Why is this working out so much currently? Because Mensa has no lower tier. Neither does SK really. Or Guardian. This is just showing the importance of having all tiers when going in war. 

 

Furthermore, this is a way for the underdogs, the side who gets pounded round 1, to actually be able to do something other than call it quits. It's an additional interesting point to the war system.

 

Is it unbeatable? NO. I've 4 CITY tank cap at this level. That's all. 

 

(1% of population can be soldiers, 20% of population can be in tanks.) 

 

With proper strategy and actually a present lower tier, these nations can be easily taken out. Perfect controls exist already, no need changing anything. 

 

This is a pretty good write up and point.

  • Upvote 2

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

The city scores do seem drastic for small nations. Having them be score equivalent to 2000 infra each makes sense at the top but not at the bottom.

If this goes through as it as I'd really, really, like a way to delete a city.

 

And I agree with Tywin, max army size is a lot more powerful than the replacement rate. His enemies should adapt, not the game.

Edited by Woot
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"

Yeah... Ever heard of Vietnam?

And don't think just their war with the USA... Theyve followed the same format for many centuries.

 

Could unload a ton of other real world examples here to ruin your point.

 

 

And thats essentially the inspiration for the strategy we are using now against you.

 

"Organization/strategy" - requires adapting to what your enemy is doing in order to defeat him.

If your organization and strategy do not work, you change your approach.

Which is what we did against you, when facing the large numbers we are still fighting against now.

We didnt play the game the way you wanted us to... Or in line with your strategic expectation.

We shifted our strategy and played to our stengths and your limitations.

 

You could easily adapt and win... Hell, we could tell you how.

Challenge and variety is what makes a game fun... Not sitting following the same routine and bragging on a forum about being organized and superior.

 

All strategy works up to the point the war actually starts... From then on its about adapting to what the enemy does in response to you.

In real life... Many a general has gone down to defeat for being unable to adapt to how the environment changed in fromt of him.

In game terms... That is what makes things interesting... Because the outcome isnt locked into a routine.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could easily adapt and win... Hell, we could tell you how.

Challenge and variety is what makes a game fun... Not sitting following the same routine and bragging on a forum about being organized and superior.

If you're willing to explain. I'd love to listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this working out so much currently? Because Mensa has no lower tier. Neither does SK really. Or Guardian. This is just showing the importance of having all tiers when going in war.

 

With proper strategy and actually a present lower tier, these nations can be easily taken out. Perfect controls exist already, no need changing anything.

 

Exactly.

 

Dont blame us for you designing your alliance poorly.

 

A truly strong alliance should be able to defend itself on any tier.

 

The same holds true in normal circumstances...

The people I have raided... Nothing stops them from individually building armies to defend against me.

Nothing stops the alliance they are in from having defenders ready to smash anyone on any tier who tries to raid their people. Regardless of the attackers type of nation build.

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

No that one guy at the bottom of my range can't beat me.  Similar examples apply for most of the people in the game though.  That's why we have alliances.  Mensa's co-ordinated attacks should have beaten me though.  You guys just messed it up a little.

Messed up how might I add? Are you talking about your current wars? Or the round 1 wars?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way I think something like this should be implemented is to protect new players against being beaten down by old nations with massively inflated city counts relative to their scores. If you have 10 or 13 cities and you've been around a year, you should not be able to perpetually curbstomp 2-3 month old babies with 5 or 6 or 7 cities. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, after seeing the sides to this, I really dislike this new score formula. We should keep it the same, and perhaps see the affect of perks. You know, that thing you've been promising us since for-f**king-ever.

  • Upvote 6

putin-trump-sig_zps657urhx9.jpg

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.

What Goomy said is a lot better solution than this, this will just destroy the "balance" of the game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Messed up how might I add? Are you talking about your current wars? Or the round 1 wars?

 

The current defensive wars.  A triple declare by guys with massively more military than me.  They declared on too many people though and logged in too infrequently.  There were also some tactical errors.  A couple of Mensa's other guys did a better job of it on a couple of our members and are currently having some success.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way I think something like this should be implemented is to protect new players against being beaten down by old nations with massively inflated city counts relative to their scores. If you have 10 or 13 cities and you've been around a year, you should not be able to perpetually curbstomp 2-3 month old babies with 5 or 6 or 7 cities.

 

Tell them to get in an alliance that can defend them then.

 

And that alliance to use teamwork to smash the guy attempting to raid.

 

Anyone with 5-7 cities not in an alliance is a victim.

 

Anyone with 5-7 cities in an alliance that cant protect him from a raid by one person, needs to quickly rethink his alliance choice.

 

Have one of these dangerous people come find me... And see what our alliance does to him.

 

Sounds more like you dont like how the current war is going, rather than compassion for "poor innocent babies" like me.

 

BTW - I dont have a "massively inflated city count"

And to make things even more clear - im speaking as one of the potential "victims" of your sympathy scenario.

Edited by Fasolt
  • Upvote 1
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.

 

Is this you saying that multis come up in your mind when you're planning game strategy? 

 

---

 

 

The tank and soldier limits leave me with a fraction of my entire build. 

 

I currently am maintaining about 58% of my soldiers, and 1/3 of my initial tanks. Meaning that your nations who hit me, Should have lost. Plane numbers are the only advantage I can maintain, As even beat down I would have less soldiers and tanks then most nations in my range.

 

Under the "Negative improvements premise" my Military improvements are actually functioning at about 50-66% efficiency. Which should give your guys a chance to beat out any airforce.

 

Ground Control was designed to allow you to turn the tide, and the current game mechanics allow for that.  

 

 

-------------

 

Also I would like to address the "Underdog" Bonus in Cyber Nations.

 

This has been used to help add to balances of power and prevent people from being completely beat out. As it is a game and even if you are beat out and want to try you should be at least allowed to attempt to fight back. 

 

In Cyber Nations if your odds are below 25% another 25% is added into the calculation on a ground battle. This can help provide a losing nation with a very small advantage.

 

I would correlate that principle to the fact that smaller nations do have the capabilities to maintain a larger ground force with less cities. They can use ground control as the advantage to win that. Mensa attempted this, but failed. 

 

 

----

 

On the test server Avruch, MrBooty and I fought Metro with twice as many cities as us. And we won. There where no infra implications either. It is possible to beat a nation with more cities then you. 

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

I support this change. Been saying for months that the game was too high teir based. Ive gotten outclassed and swarmed by 3 players at my score but with 1-2 cities more than me. Even 1vs1 thats hard to beat. Problem with everyone saying that it makes it too easy or otherwise that if you have a good alliance then you're safe havent considered the fact that alliances still can be overwhelmed. Besides this, with this change diversifying will come. I expect to see a lot more interaction between high teir and low teir. But besides this, it can happen currently that everyone slowly turns into a high teir slamfest, with the highest score players dominating the lower. Everyone in the thread can yell out how it makes it unbalanced or otherwise, but its a great idea in my book. The only way it can be better is if it scaled to amounts of cities.

 

10 score first,

100 second,

250 third or etc.

  • Upvote 1

"We pull in money, new recruits, all just to combat cipher, rubbing our noses in bloody battlefield dirt, all for revenge."

 

"Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night i can feel my leg, and my arm, even my fingers. The body i've lost, The comrades i've lost, won't stop hurting... it's like they're all still there... You feel it too, don't you?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just feel the need to post my own math last month about this

 

2k infra 10 city: 500 + 500 = 1000 (infra/40 + 50 per city)
2k infra 10 city: 571 + 450 = 1021 (infra/35 + 45 per city)
2k infra 10 city: 667 + 420 = 1087 (infra/30 + 42 per city)
2k infra 10 city: 800 + 400 = 1200 (infra/25 + 40 per city)
2k infra 10 city: 1000 + 250 = 1250 (Current: infra/20 + 25 per city)

 

The military is a little overboard in my personal opinion. I suppose I didn't take into account smaller nations with this math.

Edited by Hooves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have one of these dangerous people come find me... And see what our alliance does to him.

 

 

Dude, I raided the shit out of your protection racket a few months back. Arrgh tried to stop me with a 3 man coordinated attack.  You know what happened?  Arrgh got !@#$ed up.  You win some fights, you lose some fights.  You guys are fighting newbs and Mensa's 'don't really give a toss about the game' members, as well as catching a couple of guys that should have known better (looking at you BB)!  They are not victories to shout from the rooftops, but enjoy them while you can.  Your tactic is not going to lead to an overall victory.  End of the day, you are pretty much biting the thigh of the guy that has been punching you in the face, as a last resort, sure it'll hurt a bit, but soon enough you'll have your teeth knocked out.

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, I raided the shit out of your protection racket a few months back. Arrgh tried to stop me with a 3 man coordinated attack. You know what happened? Arrgh got [email protected]#$ed up. You win some fights, you lose some fights. You guys are fighting newbs and Mensa's 'don't really give a toss about the game' members, as well as catching a couple of guys that should have known better (looking at you BB)! They are not victories to shout from the rooftops, but enjoy them while you can. Your tactic is not going to lead to an overall victory. End of the day, you are pretty much biting the thigh of the guy that has been punching you in the face, as a last resort, sure it'll hurt a bit, but soon enough you'll have your teeth knocked out.

LOL

 

"Dude"... Youre not even addressing the context of what i was talking about in that quote you pulled out.

 

Or for that matter the specific scenario prior mentioned that I was responding to.

 

One person with "massively inflated city count" is not going to be able to run around continuously at the necessary point level "perpetually curbstomping" 5-6-7 city players.

Even if he beat that one person (of course he might), an organized alliance can respond and beat him.

Read Tywin's post above... Its not some unbeatable griefer build.

Trust me... He and I spoke hours about this, and he really worked out the possibilities and weaknesses.

 

(And we arent talking about people temp dropping points way down to attack someone, and then raising them back up right away to escape counters after declaring on a target. Besides being a bit ridiculous in terms of cost, thats not the same scenario or build type.)

 

Work on the reading comprehension before replying directly to someone else.

 

I dont have a bunch of cities with their infra knocked down... My "face" hasnt been "punched" (yet, but in time im sure it will be - so what, its a game lol)... By your "days playing count" I am a noob.

 

And we arent "shouting victories from rooftops" lol.

What we are is proud of not just giving up... of adapting our strategy in the face of heavy odds.

And we are enjoying ourselves as a team playing actively together.

 

Youre so bent over this "mensa vs arrgh" stuff that you skipped what I was actually responding to out of what Avruch said, to just rant about how we are nothing, we are doomed, and you will show us.

 

 

But nice to hear you dont really "give a toss" about a decent sized chunk of your membership.

Perhaps if you addressed that issue instead of frowning over our strategy, you would have already defeated that strategy.

 

And it can of course be defeated... No question.

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

On the test server Avruch, MrBooty and I fought Metro with twice as many cities as us. And we won. There where no infra implications either. It is possible to beat a nation with more cities then you. 

Lies, I was still #1 when the server reset  :v

 

But yes, I was completely and utterly unable to fight back with even pyrrhics by the end of the 3rd "day." Although, tbf, the turns are so quick I didn't even get on until the 2nd "day."

 

Funnily enough, when test server was first introduced the only thing I really wanted to see was if three nations each with only half the city count of a fourth could beat said nation. While the circumstances were not ideal, and you had a bit over half each, I was kinda happy with the results.

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

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.