Jump to content

Changing the Score Formula


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

(20% of population can be soldiers, 1% 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.

 

I like how no one had any reasonable arguments over this and just moved on with the previous pointless arguments.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

 

Then I guess that means I wasn't talking about you, doesn't it? 

 

As for Tywin's post, it's completely focused on the circumstances of the little Mensa/Arrgh conflict and not on the game mechanics and the potential circumstances they entail. I don't think Sheepy posted this with intervening in this war in mind, and obviously the effect of any change will be felt on many conflicts other than that one. I'm not sure why all the Arrgh participants in this thread are totally unable to look past this current dustup, but that would probably be helpful to this discussion. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Tywin's post, it's completely focused on the circumstances of the little Mensa/Arrgh conflict and not on the game mechanics and the potential circumstances they entail. I don't think Sheepy posted this with intervening in this war in mind, and obviously the effect of any change will be felt on many conflicts other than that one. I'm not sure why all the Arrgh participants in this thread are totally unable to look past this current dustup, but that would probably be helpful to this discussion. 

It does seem like every argument currently is only posted towards the current conflict. Not about the change as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so much Sheepy for thinking about this and what my concerns were in my message to you the other day.  I think this is a great idea.  Of course there are going to be some who are against this because they use this to their advantage, and to the disadvantage of new players/nations.  This change will further protect the players and the integrity of the game.  I can see situations where a new player, who is just starting out, just learing, never gets a fair chance to learn the game, build their nation, and as a results, simply quits the game, which is not a good message the game whats to put out there in the online gaming community.  This move protects the players, makes the NS ranges more fair, and also protects the game, your investment as well. 

 

By all means, please make the change asap!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why people keep playing the "protecting new players" card.  It's a complete fallacy, as proven by the figures given by Tywin.  Repeating it doesn't make it true.  The game mechanics are designed in such a manner that low infra isn't an advantage.  The negative income and military recruitment caps make people with less cities more than a match for that type of build when organised properly.  Plus you're not likely to recover all that negative income and the cost of resources used by attacking new players.  People are arguing based on an assumption of a problem that doesn't actually exist.

 

A maximum military approach with decent levels of infra is more dangerous to new players and is something that has been happenning the whole time but nobody seems to mind that because it doesn't suit them for that to be changed.

 

Sheepy has made changes to encourage players to join alliances (objectives for example).  These alliances should then be doing their best to protect their new players from raiders of any kind.  If you leave them cast adrift in score from the rest of your alliance, there is every chance they will be beaten whether their attackers have relatively low infra or not.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents worth: overall I'm neutral on it.

While it will help starting nations, small alliances, neutrals, and generally all non-raiding AAs to deal with raiders more easily, we have to remember with this proposal and all similar proposals that aim to create a more level playing field are bad for competion and slowly kill the intresting in-game landscape. The nature on P&W is a nation/alliance/coalition building game, that means players will always find creative or not so creative ways to beat other players, limiting their options to do that will hurt the game every time. Any nation ruler that has but in time to build better nation than I, has but in the time to find ways to take my nations cash more effectively, in my mind at least has every right to do so. There is nothing stopping players to come up with working ways to deal with raiders and I don't see a good reason why Sheepy- the all mighty gamecreator that he is should order just a radical kill order on one way of playing the game, what's next?

To which public pressure to modify the game to serve the interests of some other player groups will he fold next? Will he ban raiding all together next or come after people playing the game differently(neutrals, off treaty-web AAs) than most players? Or will there be a time when someone will build a coalition having about half the players in it and starts to pressure Sheepy to fold to that majority and delete their in-game opposition? When does the bantering to majority of players wishes stop and the rules of the game start to mean something similar to everyone playing? 

 

Also It will hurt anyone fighting the second or third rounds of wars in a major conflict, by taking advantage of vacation mode too coming out at the start of second or third round a fresh nation has his pick of half-destroyed nations whose infra( cash creation) is gone, military is half gone, but the fresh nation has all of it. It robs beaten down nation of a change to do major damage in lower score ranges just because their score doesn't drop so easily anymore which will mean they'll stay in range of victors that can keep punishing them almost as long as they wish with out no questions about what will happen when beaten down nation starts to ravage their lower tiers.

Edited by kalev60
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I guess that means I wasn't talking about you, doesn't it?

 

Nope... you were also talking about me, and others like me.

 

Im one of those poor little people, with "5-6-7 cities" that youre so concerned about.

(Im a little over 3 months in, but a week is far less important than city count in terms of formulas and mechanics).

 

You were talking specifically of people like me in your example, and your desire to see us "protected" from those with "massively inflated city counts". We are the focus of your "protecting new players card" (- see Dan77 above).

 

 

---

 

Im also someone who has spent a lot of time talking about this with Tywin... working on its strengths and weaknesses, while also looking at it not from the perspective of the "inflated" but that of a lower city count person. It adds more variety and possibility to the game... which is why Im defending it, even though Im not doing it and will potentially face it.

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

Is the score issue to solve the issue with wars. If that is the case just give infra a military bonus modifier. 

 

It makes no sense that a nation with six cities and 600 infra can destroy a nation with four or five cities and 2000 infra.

 

If you have better infrastructure it is a logical conclusion you have better equipment and such for your military because your nation is more advanced. Just my .02

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes no sense that a nation with six cities and 600 infra can destroy a nation with four or five cities and 2000 infra.

At that point range being "destroyed" is usually the result of the size of the army each chose to build.

Many are very lazy when it comes to their military and leave themselves weak, depending instead on their alliance name and treaties to protect them. If someone chooses to build a small army its their own fault they are made a victim, regardless of city count or amount of infra.

 

 

But speaking to the example you give...

If both were to build a max army, they would each have strong points and weak points... (actually the 6 city nation would have only one strong point)...

But the person with 5 cities and 2000 infra in each, would have a clear edge over someone with 6 cities and 600 infra in each... due to higher population and the ability to build more military buildings overall (larger ground army and greater daily recruitment). Plus he would have the ability to build Projects (increasing recruitment even more).

And the 5 city nations chance of winning would become excellent if he got the first attacks in.

 

But a 6 city 600 infra player would not be able to easily go around destroying 5 city 2000 infra nations that are well defended.

In fact he would attack at a disadvantage.

 

Read Tywins post above for more details and more extreme examples.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

honestly fasolt you are not the kind of player they are talking about, its the guy with 10-15 cities, and 400-600 infra, but has 35-40 improvement slots.  That type of player is extremely difficult to stop unless you have a few guys on your side that have also been beat down and can counter them.

 

And yes, Tywin is a nation fully taking advantage of this, I know back before the reset when we were fighting Mensa, I was looking forward to creating some havok since most of my infra was destroyed and basically doing the same thing, but we got reset, and i made the same mistake it looks like mensa is learning now, about not overextending yourself.

 

It comes down to, do you want to change the score mechanic to prevent a few players from using that mechanic to its full advantage constantly(and as more people figure it out it will probably be exploited by more people)  or do you want to continue to handicap a losing alliance's ability to fight back in a losing war?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

(20% of population can be soldiers, 1% 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. 

 

 

Your current Infra:  4031.04

Your current cities:  12

 

Your current Soldiers:  79316

Your current Tanks:  2755

Your current Planes:  975

 

Nation score:  786.31

Minimum Attack:  589.73

Maximum Attack: 1376.04

 

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

 

Your Test Example

 

Total Cities:  8

Total Infra:  8000  ( 1000 per city )

 

Total Soldiers:  120000

Total Tanks:  10000

Total Planes:  810

 

Total Score:  1017.00

Minimum Declare Range:  762.75

Maximum Declare Range:  1779.75

 

 

You're right, if someone was decently decked out at 8 cities, they'd be able to compete.  Nothing prevents you from declaring, upping your Infra, then using your city advantage though ( Outside of them catching you after you declare ).  Keep in mind you pose a much greater threat to those in the 500, 600 tier range.

 

Also, unless I'm mistaken, Planes and Navy is not capped by Population.  So the extra slots will come in major use.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i truly like how it's literally only the pirates who are arguing against this change :P. While I do fully believe this change is needed for long term stability of the game, timing wise is horrble

 

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. 

 

(20% of population can be soldiers, 1% 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. 

 

Ok lets take your nation as an example.

 

You have 12 cities with as you just said, a usual 4300 infra cap on them. This brings you to roughly 360 infra per city. At the same time though, you are maintaining anywhere from 23-25 improvements in each of these cities. All with max military. While you do face the citizen count penalty for soldiers/tanks, this is not occurring with AC.

 

This means with your current airforce size, you are able to maintain an AC size someone 2-3 times your nation size should for starters.

 

Next, while your soldier cap may be 90k for a 6city population hard cap, you get to benefit from something others don't, double buying. This means if you were to go up against someone with only 6cities, you are able to rebuy an additional 30barracks worth of troops a day compared to your enemies. This gives a vast advantage in a war, especially against new players

  • Upvote 1

4DKO1Df450x175_zps30h9x0af.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

honestly fasolt you are not the kind of player they are talking about, its the guy with 10-15 cities, and 400-600 infra, but has 35-40 improvement slots. That type of player is extremely difficult to stop unless you have a few guys on your side that have also been beat down and can counter them.

First of all... Avruchs original statement and example were ridiculous because it was intentionally skewed to an unrealistic extreme.

And because it was an attempt to play on sympathy for "the weak and helpless" - when their real complaint isnt really about that at all (- shown in Wayne's earlier reply to something else I wrote. Its not concern for new people and those who dont play enough... They simply dont like whats happened in this war and are trapped in place by the possibility that other alliances may attack them if given the opening).

 

 

One person with high city count and low per city infra is not going to be able to just drop into the middle of an alliance and beat all the 5-6-7 city people up at will without that alliance responding. The attacker is going to be within range of people stronger than the 5-6-7 city grouping - people higher point than him - and they can stop him.

 

That was what my original point was when I responded to Avruch.

And its not that hard for anyone to figure out for themselves.

 

In every example people give to complain... They make it sound like the fights would be one on one with whatever alliance the target is in, mysteriously absent. Come on.

 

---

 

Now, responding to your comment to me that Ive quoted above, its apparent you did not read the entire sequence... I originally replied to a specific statement that was made by Avruch about high city count players with low per city infra beating up on people with 5-6-7 cities. I happen to have 7 cities so I fall into the category of one of his imagined "victims". I am an example of one half of his scenario - thus yes, in that specific statement he was also speaking of people like me.

I pointed out that if such happened, the persons alliance could stop the attack - which is what an alliance and the teamwork within it, are for. So it would not be the "perpetual curbstomp" claimed.

 

Avruchs reply to that was silly in its attempt to dismiss, since it ignored the actual point of what I wrote, in response to the scenario he described.

 

The thing is... My city count was irrelevant. Me not being one of those high city count low infra players doesnt matter... and it doesnt change the validity of the points I originally made.

 

I only added the "BTW" at the bottom of my original statement to make it clear that I wasnt one of the people being complained about. And thus was not defending that nation build because it was the one i was using... Its not.

 

---

 

As for the second part of what I quoted above... Tywin or one of the others can address that in detail if they feel like it... but it does not take 3 nations like Tywins to beat Tywin. Though Im sure he will be flattered that you think so ;)

 

He and I have spoken at length over many conversations about his concerns over the builds weaknesses.

Trust me LoL... Many many messages in game and IRC over it.

Thats why Im speaking with confidence on this - its not that much a mystery.

 

Why do you think we are all working as a team in this war? LoL

 

People are making it sound like this one guy could drop into the middle of an alliance and destroy at will endlessly. Maybe an alliance full of people with small armies... but hell ive done that myself more than once already.

 

And in that case its not the attackers nation build thats so much the issue... its the lack of strong armies in the group he is attacking. Which makes the results the fault of those beaten.

 

Really? How often are fights one on one with no help from alliance friends?

If no help can come because all of those friends are too weak to help, the problem is not the person attacking. Its that your alliance is weak and cannot defend itself.

 

If Tywin attacks one person lower in points than him... Three standard nations higher in points with good armies can attack him in response. The fight doesnt have to be one on one... or this ridiculous straw man example of only those weaker in points with a low set number of cities being considered to exist.

 

Like I said above... Why do you think we keep working together as a team in this war?

Combined arms... Different but Complimentary nation builds covering each others weaknesses.

 

This game looks simple on the surface but it can be complex in how its played... which makes it interesting.

Unless people want it both simple and simplistic because they dont want to address challenges that require them to rethink their approach or leave their desired comfort zone. Youre caught up too much in a single routine.

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

 

Next, while your soldier cap may be 90k for a 6city population hard cap, you get to benefit from something others don't, double buying. This means if you were to go up against someone with only 6cities, you are able to rebuy an additional 30barracks worth of troops a day compared to your enemies. This gives a vast advantage in a war, especially against new players

 

 

That is true, the double buy would be greater cause of the Barracks/Factory higher cap.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

changes:

1) Military have greater influence on score.

2) adjusted score becomes lower (in my case, the score is 300 less after accepting the proposed one)

3) those who get more cities with lesser infra will go relatively higher than those who focus more on infra than no. of cities

 

why do we make the score of military gain/less share greater influence than before to make it more "obvious"???

I have no like or dislike here, but surely the war range will be adjusted.

Edited by Arthur James
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, seriously, seriously against this change. The better choice would be to kill off improvements as infrastructure goes down. This can be done directly, or through giving airstrikes the ability to take out 1 improvement per immense triumph if "Target Infrastructure" is selected.

I actually really like this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The better choice would be to kill off improvements as infrastructure goes down. This can be done directly, or through giving airstrikes the ability to take out 1 improvement per immense triumph if "Target Infrastructure" is selected.

Thats a valid suggestion.

 

I wouldnt make it so 1 improvement was destroyed for each immense triumph infra airstrike... because, being someone that has bombed the hell out of people repeatedly for days (even weeks), taking out an improvement each and every time would be too much.

 

But giving a chance of an improvement being taken out would be both reasonable and make sense. Strategic Bombing.

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

Thats a valid suggestion.

 

I wouldnt make it a certain 1 improvement per immense triumph infra airstrike... because, being someone that has bombed the hell out of people repeatedly for days (even weeks), taking out an improvement each and every time would be too much.

 

But giving a chance of an improvement being taken out would be both reasonable and make sense. Strategic Bombing.

 

Perhaps you could be forced to choose between "Target Infrastructure" and "Target Improvements" -- Targeting improvements could only take out half the infrastructure, but give a % chance to take out a single improvement (maybe based on infra damage done?)

Edited by Syrup
  • Upvote 1

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Strongly* against this change. First of all, it lowers the ability for nations to come back from a war. Secondly, it would completely destroy the ability for us to choose a strategy:

 

-Grow large per city, make tons of money per turn for more warchest/more tanks/etc. 

-Keep cities smaller, make less money, but perform better in the initial strikes of war.

 

I don't support changes that make the game less dynamic & interesting.

 

Seriously, seriously, seriously against this change. The better choice would be to kill off improvements as infrastructure goes down. This can be done directly, or through giving airstrikes the ability to take out 1 improvement per immense triumph if "Target Infrastructure" is selected.

 

 

Perhaps they shouldn't have built their cities so tall. If someone was to make 6 cities with 4000 infrastructure each, they would get absolutely wrecked militarily. It's not everyone else's fault for playing correctly -- it's that players fault for building their nation in a way that diminished their war-performance.

 

Keep in mind that my alliance (MENSA) is currently getting strongly hurt by an alliance using the above strategy. Do I want the rules to be changed in my favor? Absolutely not. They are using game mechanics in a clever, but not overpowered way. They are sacrificing pixels and income in exchange for sniping up at our lower/mid tiers. We could do this as well, but we choose not to. Please don't take away interesting strategic choices, Sheepy.

 

That is implemented via nukes and Missiles. If it is your goal to cripple a nation in the long run  you should missile it. Instead others choose to use airstrikes and navals, but hey efficient damage is good damage in my book. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, I think the only number that should be adjusted, if any at all, is cities. Everything else is fine. It doesn't have to be a doubled value either, maybe just +5 or 10 instead. Nothing drastic, but enough that 10 cities would add 50-100pts from current score. It's really not a big deal how it's currently setup though. Although in my opinion, if you have 12 cities at only 4300 total infra, then you're doing something wrong. What's the point in more cities if you're intentionally debilitating yourself to that extent? You might as well just stay as a 6-7 cities nation instead and have it's full benefits. I understand the concept of having more for less infra, meaning attacks do less damage bcs your base is so low as it is, and rebuilding is dirt cheap, but you're still hurting yourself more in the long run.

 

It's not wrong to use the mechanics of the game to be able to have some success in wars after a hard beat down. That's just part of the tactics in the game. If you are the smaller guy getting hit by someone from higher up, you either do the same thing the bigger guy just did, or ask your AA to try to build you up a little faster to catch up to the mid tier.

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

I honestly like the idea of scaling city points the best. Each city has an additional value towards NS once built. Something like city 1 has no points. City 2 is worth 50points. City 3 is worth 125points, etc

 

And yes the point values are just an example for increases and not an actual mechanic amount suggestion. That would take more math than I have the time for

 

Edit: also please remember any destruction of improvements would far break game mechanics further in favor of whoever outnumbers their enemy

Edited by Jon Snow

4DKO1Df450x175_zps30h9x0af.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adjusting the relative value of cities upwards is the same as adjusting infra downwards. That said, +5 is literally nothing -- that's only a 75 score difference with 15 cities.

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

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.