Jump to content

Changing the Score Formula


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

Giving people more ways to fight back when they are outnumbered is needed. But the way to do that is restructure the way fighting works to give people at a disadvantage numbers wise more of a chance to do fight back and do damage conventionally. Not to let people declare on nations with half the number of cities once they've been smashed by people with more similar city counts

  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

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.

 

Believe it or not, Mensa thanks to the war and damage you have been taking the last 2-3 weeks have benefited from this as well.  its extremely difficult to find fresh nations that can match up with your nations in the current NS range you are in, with most of you sitting on military levels that would normally be at the start of a war 500-1000 NS higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, Mensa thanks to the war and damage you have been taking the last 2-3 weeks have benefited from this as well.  its extremely difficult to find fresh nations that can match up with your nations in the current NS range you are in, with most of you sitting on military levels that would normally be at the start of a war 500-1000 NS higher.

 

Yeah, after the war now, this has turned out to help us. In order of who benefits from this score most:

 

Political Pirates > Arrgh > MENSA > Rose/VE.

 

You guys sit on massive piles of infrastructure. That said, the change would still make the game less dynamic, so I don't support it, at a personal level. Honestly, it hurts my alliance more than it helps it though. The additional Arrgh/Vanguard front is a way larger "cost" than the relative benefit of slightly-better scores.

 

Keep in mind that many of us couldn't max tanks due to the lower income from smaller cities/population limits. Also, you guys artificially boosted your scores through unnecessary *hordes* of nuclear weapons and ships. Not our fault you don't manage your score well.

 

At the end of the day, score management is one of the few skillful personal choices left in this game. Do I allocate my "score" resource to infrastructure to build up a big war chest? To ships? To airforce? To tanks? By withdrawing the drawback of allocating resources to infrastructure you remove player choice from the game, along with encouraging less war in general -- both outcomes which I view as negative.

  • Upvote 4

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, score management is one of the few skillful personal choices left in this game. Do I allocate my "score" resource to infrastructure to build up a big war chest? To ships? To airforce? To tanks? By withdrawing the drawback of allocating resources to infrastructure you remove player choice from the game, along with encouraging less war in general -- both outcomes which I view as negative.

There's still plenty of reason to be careful about what infra level you buy to.  The higher you go in infrastructure, the longer it takes to pay for itself, and the more likely it is to be destroyed before it pays for itself.

 

If there are strategies to score maintenance, the score mechanic isn't serving its purpose, which is to limit how uneven a fight between two nations should be.  It shouldn't be an arbitrary mechanic, and when the NS value of different things is so badly misaligned with their actual military worth like it is now, it becomes increasingly arbitrary.

Edited by Azaghul
  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's still plenty of reason to be careful about what infra level you buy to.  The higher you go in infrastructure, the longer it takes to pay for itself, and the more likely it is to be destroyed before it pays for itself.

 

If there are strategies to score maintenance, the score mechanic isn't serving its purpose, which is to limit how uneven a fight between two nations should be.  It shouldn't be an arbitrary mechanic, and when the NS value of different things is so badly misaligned with their actual military worth like it is now, it becomes increasingly arbitrary.

 

The solution here to to make score accurately reflect militarymaking capacity. The score level for ships needs to be reduced, imo.

 

However, the score level for infra seems well-balanced imo. It allows you to earn the income for a larger war chest, be able to hold max tanks for longer, rebuild war damage, etc. Small-but-wide and tall-but-narrow each have their own advantages.

 

The reason that I think it's balanced is because, if this was such an issue -- nations would tear down their infrastructure before entering into war (keeping only the commerce/military slots) to maximize their score warmaking capacity. However, they don't do this, because the tradeoff is currently well-balanced.

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone wants to run comparisons between the current formula and the new formula, I went ahead and threw together a basic form calculator. https://resvernas.net/resources/index.php?page=scorecalc

  • Upvote 2

greene.png

Formerly known as Grealind of Resvernas (28 October 2014-29 August 2017) and Greene of Japan (29 August 2017-28 Septmber 2017)

7th Caretaker of Duat, the Deity Thoth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an idea: only factor this "new and improved" formula into the calculations for war range. Although that might make the game considerably more complex.  Just throwing up an idea here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an idea: only factor this "new and improved" formula into the calculations for war range. Although that might make the game considerably more complex.  Just throwing up an idea here.

 

That's exactly what we're discussing here...? Not sure what you mean.

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screw all of you xD. From October: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/9362-destroying-improvementsmilitary-losses/

 

I mean it's not exactly the same as your suggestions, but my thread's pretty similar--I definitely support increased improvement destruction as a solution, not changing the score formula.

Edited by Beowulf the Second

01:58:39 <BeowulftheSecond> Belisarius of The Byzantine Empire has sent your nation $0.00, 0.00 food, 0.00 coal, 0.00 oil, 0.00 uranium, 0.00 lead, 0.00 iron, 0.00 bauxite, 0.00 gasoline, 0.00 munitions, 1,000.00 steel, and 0.00 aluminum from the alliance bank of Rose.
01:58:46 <BeowulftheSecond> someone please explain 
01:59:12 <%Belisarius> sleep deprivatin is a &#33;@#&#036; @[email protected]
01:59:14 â€” %Belisarius shrugs
01:59:18 <BeowulftheSecond> we're at WAR. WE ARE BURNING EACH OTHER'S PIXELS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure I like the change to be honest. The NS scoring system is fine as it is.

 

A better option to counter this would be to introduce a method to destroy cities. The fact that a city can't be completely destroyed is what helped lead to all these low NS nations with high city counts.

 

What would destroy a city?

 

I think a cool improvement to the game would be the ability to target the city an attack is launched on. This goes for all attacks. Ground. Air. Naval. Missiles. Nukes.The city is destroyed if it's infrastructure is reduced to less than 100 infrastructure. However, a city is only eligible to be completely destroyed if it's infrastructure was, at some point in the cities life, at or above 1000 infrastructure (this is more to help protect the smaller/younger nations from losing cities).

When a nation goes to war with someone, they have to decide if they want to focus on one city to try an destroy it OR if they want to take the default option of destroying the highest infrastructure levels. Obviously if they focus on 1 city, but fail, they did less damage then they would have shaving off infrastructure in each city (higher infrastructure cost more to rebuild). Adds a lot of strategy to the game.

Couldn't a nation just keep buying back infrastructure in the targeted city? Sure, they are trying to keep it from being destroyed. This is where teamwork and strategy pay off from the aggressor.

 

Anyway, just my two cents. Add a way to destroy cities > changing the scoring formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure I like the change to be honest. The NS scoring system is fine as it is.

 

A better option to counter this would be to introduce a method to destroy cities. The fact that a city can't be completely destroyed is what helped lead to all these low NS nations with high city counts.

 

What would destroy a city?

 

I think a cool improvement to the game would be the ability to target the city an attack is launched on. This goes for all attacks. Ground. Air. Naval. Missiles. Nukes.The city is destroyed if it's infrastructure is reduced to less than 100 infrastructure. However, a city is only eligible to be completely destroyed if it's infrastructure was, at some point in the cities life, at or above 1000 infrastructure (this is more to help protect the smaller/younger nations from losing cities).

When a nation goes to war with someone, they have to decide if they want to focus on one city to try an destroy it OR if they want to take the default option of destroying the highest infrastructure levels. Obviously if they focus on 1 city, but fail, they did less damage then they would have shaving off infrastructure in each city (higher infrastructure cost more to rebuild). Adds a lot of strategy to the game.

Couldn't a nation just keep buying back infrastructure in the targeted city? Sure, they are trying to keep it from being destroyed. This is where teamwork and strategy pay off from the aggressor.

 

Anyway, just my two cents. Add a way to destroy cities > changing the scoring formula.

 

Considering my last city alone cost me 106m to buy, not including infra.

 

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution here to to make score accurately reflect militarymaking capacity. The score level for ships needs to be reduced, imo.

 

However, the score level for infra seems well-balanced imo. It allows you to earn the income for a larger war chest, be able to hold max tanks for longer, rebuild war damage, etc. Small-but-wide and tall-but-narrow each have their own advantages.

 

Warchests are also a function of how long you've had since your last fight to accumulate resources.  And you could be aided by your alliance bank.  Infra isn't a very accurate measure of how big your warchest will be.  

 

 

 

The reason that I think it's balanced is because, if this was such an issue -- nations would tear down their infrastructure before entering into war (keeping only the commerce/military slots) to maximize their score warmaking capacity. However, they don't do this, because the tradeoff is currently well-balanced.

Why destroy your own infra when you could force your opponents to spend lots of resources destroying it?  Sure having a high infra level might make you a target for nations that can win a war against you, but if you're destroying your infra anyway a loosing war is rarely going to be much better in comparison.  That's if you even can be sure that you won't have help against bigger nations, or that the enemy alliance has the capacity to hit you with bigger nations.

GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering my last city alone cost me 106m to buy, not including infra.

 

No.

 

The cost is relative to your size, so 106m is much less to you than to someone like me. Would a city be costly to lose, yes? But it's the cost of war. Also, keep in mind my proposal about losing a city makes it hard to do so, especially if your active and keep buy back lost infrastructure and your enemies aren't well coordinated. My proposal introduces a way to simply add more strategy to the war game and give a nice reward to those who work together. Destroying a city would be almost impossible in a 1 v 1 battle according to my proposal.

 

Also, I worry this game is less than a year away from people maxing out on everything the game has to offer. Look at your nation Vosunda. Your nation is not even a year old yet and you already have 15 cities and half the available projects. In less than a year, you'll literally have everything this game has to offer. Then what?

 

And you won't be alone either. The top quarter of all the nations in Orbis will be in the same boat. Every nation will be exactly the same.

Edited by Nintendo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost is relative to your size, so 106m is much less to you than to someone like me. Would a city be costly to lose, yes? But it's the cost of war. Also, keep in mind my proposal about losing a city makes it hard to do so, especially if your active and keep buy back lost infrastructure and your enemies aren't well coordinated. My proposal introduces a way to simply add more strategy to the war game and give a nice reward to those who work together. Destroying a city would be almost impossible in a 1 v 1 battle according to my proposal.

While I do truly love the idea of city destruction, nukes are going to make it too easy to do this

4DKO1Df450x175_zps30h9x0af.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about just increasing the down-declare to 35%? Or simply just have the infra/city score change and not the military?

 

The first would only compound the problem we're discussing.

 

The second change would have the same effect, if I'm understanding your post correctly.

Edited by Syrup

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we shouldn't be able to reduce our score then. Once we've achieved a score, it shouldn't be able to go below that.

 

An interesting idea, but the losers in a war would *never* be able to come back with this change.

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting idea, but the losers in a war would *never* be able to come back with this change.

 

If they get beiged. Not really much different than beating a nation down, and then after the war expires someone else picks up the spot and keeps hammering anyway.

  • Downvote 2

"I VM due to timezone differences" -Reuben Cheuk

 

timezoneVM.jpg.64e93c4270b92d26e0ac30572d9351eb.jpg 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they get beiged. Not really much different than beating a nation down, and then after the war expires someone else picks up the spot and keeps hammering anyway.

 

Think of it this way. If a nation has 15 cities, but 0 infra/ 0 military per city from constant airstrikes, it seems a bit silly that I can still declare on him with 15 cities and full military/full infra. Beige or not, he has no chance of getting up at that point.

☾☆


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.