Jump to content

Changing the Score Formula


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

Maybe who nations can declare wars on should change to not be based on score but the number of cities instead

 

Otherwise nations with like 12 cities could get destroyed down to 1000 score, rebuild their military and then attack other nations who only have 5 or 6 cities (raid them to try to get money to rebuild themselves) and so can't the defender doesn't have a high enough military to ever defend themselves?

 

So it could work like nations can only declare on other nations that have the same number of cities or more?

Or maybe they could declare on a nation with 1 city less than them?

 

Try to rebalance the game a bit, because especially after big wars like this one, the smaller nations can be attacked a lot to help pay for others damages and could lead people that are new to the game to leave the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the point a bit, this https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13348> nation has more planes than NS. That doesn't strike me as particularly balanced.

 

Getting into my last post a bit, I think the score value for infrastructure is fine where it's at. It's fair that nations who want to focus on infra get their score brought up because of that. Cities offer a lot without any kind of diminishing return (except the increased cost for the next one), so I think their score should also be brought up. That leaves some diversity in strategies, where people with a lot of nations and not as much infra are competing with nations with a relatively large amount of infra and fewer cities.

 

Planes should be capped based on population. There is very little balance or strategic play when a nation that has half your score has more planes than you. Even if we had similar sized militaries, and I sold my infra to get in that nation's range, I would be at a disadvantage because I would have to get rid of improvements too, whereas the other nation lost their infra in war, so they kept most of their improvements. This means that even if I wanted to peacefully ruin my own nation, I couldn't do anything against these raiders. I would literally have to find someone to trash my infra for me just so I could attempt to compete.

 

Which brings me to the subject of changing how improvements get destroyed. While I support random destruction of improvements in airstrikes or after certain levels of infra are destroyed, I feel it could unbalance other aspects of war, so it would probably need to be tested.

Edited by Luke the 13th

Pizza

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the point a bit, this https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13348> nation has more planes than NS. That doesn't strike me as particularly balanced.

 

Getting into my last post a bit, I think the score value for infrastructure is fine where it's at. It's fair that nations who want to focus on infra get their score brought up because of that. Cities offer a lot without any kind of diminishing return (except the increased cost for the next one), so I think their score should also be brought up. That leaves some diversity in strategies, where people with a lot of nations and not as much infra are competing with nations with a relatively large amount of infra and fewer cities.

 

Planes should be capped based on population. There is very little balance or strategic play when a nation that has half your score has more planes than you. Even if we had similar sized militaries, and I sold my infra to get in that nation's range, I would be at a disadvantage because I would have to get rid of improvements too, whereas the other nation lost their infra in war, so they kept most of their improvements. This means that even if I wanted to peacefully ruin my own nation, I couldn't do anything against these raiders. I would literally have to find someone to trash my infra for me just so I could attempt to compete.

 

Which brings me to the subject of changing how improvements get destroyed. While I support random destruction of improvements in airstrikes or after certain levels of infra are destroyed, I feel it could unbalance other aspects of war, so it would probably need to be tested.

 

Yes, the air may seem a bit off but look at his tank levels. He's sitting at 2000. He's capped at that because of infra. Any nation in his score with a somewhat decent military(most have 10k/12.5k tanks) can easily immense him on ground and bring air down to somewhere in 700-800. 

 

I don't know how more balanced it can get. 

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

This is a positive change, but only if paired with some nerfs to attackers advantage imo.

Attackers advantage is, has been, and will continue to be ridiculous. I don't think there should be anything that adds to it until it's finally addressed, but once that happens then this would be a good improvement.

  • Upvote 2

<+JohnHarms> We need more feminists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the air may seem a bit off but look at his tank levels. He's sitting at 2000. He's capped at that because of infra. Any nation in his score with a somewhat decent military(most have 10k/12.5k tanks) can easily immense him on ground and bring air down to somewhere in 700-800. 

 

I don't know how more balanced it can get. 

As I understand it, you can have tanks up to 1% of your population, which in his case would be 6.7k at the time I post this. Even if a nation with 10 cities had maxed out tanks and was somehow still in his range, if he hit first, he'd get air control, reducing the effectiveness of the target nations tanks to 1/2, which would be 6.25k. Based on the 20% population cap for soldiers, that gives him 134k soldiers.

 

At his current score of 988, his defensive range is 564-1317. I type his score into the nation search for war range, and of the first 50 nations in that defensive range, I found 5 nations that are currently fielding enough tanks to exceed his cap. Only 1 of those 5 nations can exceed his soldier cap. All 5 of those nations have suffered infra damage that hasn't been rebuilt, which is leading me to believe the only way to effectively go on the offensive against a nation like this is to be a nation that has had your infra destroyed in war.

 

This means that on the defensive, a nation would need 11 cities(10 cities doesn't work, as having only 6.25k tanks after losing air control leaves the person with an advantage of 16k soldiers(150k-134k), which translates to 400 tanks(~230 if he has munitions) , for a total of 6.65k tanks against 6.7k), and max tanks and soldiers to effectively defend against him, and on the offensive, a nation would need to have lost their infra in war in order to stand a chance against him. That doesn't sound like a lot of diversity in strategies.

 

The nations: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=29786https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=26850https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=26064https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=24658, 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=24493

Edited by Luke the 13th

Pizza

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know you can attack with more than one nation at a time right <_<

This could work to the benefit of both parties involved.

 

Unless there's a point I'm missing, in which case I implore you explain it.

Edited by Luke the 13th

Pizza

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, you can have tanks up to 1% of your population, which in his case would be 6.7k at the time I post this. Even if a nation with 10 cities had maxed out tanks and was somehow still in his range, if he hit first, he'd get air control, reducing the effectiveness of the target nations tanks to 1/2, which would be 6.25k. Based on the 20% population cap for soldiers, that gives him 134k soldiers.

 

At his current score of 988, his defensive range is 564-1317. I type his score into the nation search for war range, and of the first 50 nations in that defensive range, I found 5 nations that are currently fielding enough tanks to exceed his cap. Only 1 of those 5 nations can exceed his soldier cap. All 5 of those nations have suffered infra damage that hasn't been rebuilt, which is leading me to believe the only way to effectively go on the offensive against a nation like this is to be a nation that has had your infra destroyed in war.

 

This means that on the defensive, a nation would need 11 cities(10 cities doesn't work, as having only 6.25k tanks after losing air control leaves the person with an advantage of 16k soldiers(150k-134k), which translates to 400 tanks(~230 if he has munitions) , for a total of 6.65k tanks against 6.7k), and max tanks and soldiers to effectively defend against him, and on the offensive, a nation would need to have lost their infra in war in order to stand a chance against him. That doesn't sound like a lot of diversity in strategies.

 

The nations: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=29786https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=26850https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=26064https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=24658, 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=24493

 

You're wrong because if he increased his tanks to 6700, his score will go up by 188. Meaning 1176 score with having to defend from 1586 score nations. He will also be in range of 12 city people with 15000 tanks and 1080 air, he will get absolutely hammered. 

 

You say he has to defend from up to 1317 at his current score, let's calculate this. A 8 city nation score is 175 from city, and assuming he has two projects, let's take base score at 195 score. Assuming he builds a reasonable 1300 infra per city, he will have a total of 10400 infrastructure meaning 520 score, with a total of 715 at the moment. With 120k soldiers, 10k tanks and 720 plane the total score of a 8 city nation is going to be 1244. He can declare right now on Perry having 134k soldiers, 2.8k tanks 1.1k air. With just one ground attack, he will easily have ground control lowering his planes to 726 planes usable. 

 

Tell me again how if a 8 city nation declares on Perry, the 8 city one is at disadvantage. If 2 8 city nations attack Perry, Perry is screwed.

 

On the attacking, yes this is a very amazing build. It's more of the glass cannon build. That's why you should be in an alliance which can protect you with a lower tier.  

 

I'm not going to look at current nations, I'm going to look at what's possible with the game mechanism available at this time. It's not my fault people do not play it well given the bounds they've on them. And I've given you exact scores and clear indication on how a 8 city nation can take out Perry. Will it require a bit of teamwork and coordination? Yes. But so will it if fighting two equal powers. Nothing is easy, not at this level, not at the above level, everything requires a bit of work. Same here. The issue at hand is that it isn't a very OP build, it just looks like that because of the air limit but the tank is the counter to it. Warfare isn't mean to be easy. Air is superior here but ground is greatly inferior which makes for an amazing balance. 

 

If a 8 city nation can take you out at that build which a 13 city nation has at that level, any complain of it being too overpowered is simply stupid.  

Edited by Tywin Lannister
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're wrong because if he increased his tanks to 6700, his score will go up by 188. Meaning 1176 score with having to defend from 1586 score nations. He will also be in range of 12 city people with 15000 tanks and 1080 air, he will get absolutely hammered. 

 

You say he has to defend from up to 1317 at his current score, let's calculate this. A 8 city nation score is 175 from city, and assuming he has two projects, let's take base score at 195 score. Assuming he builds a reasonable 1300 infra per city, he will have a total of 10400 infrastructure meaning 520 score, with a total of 715 at the moment. With 120k soldiers, 10k tanks and 720 plane the total score of a 8 city nation is going to be 1244. He can declare right now on Perry having 134k soldiers, 2.8k tanks 1.1k air. With just one ground attack, he will easily have ground control lowering his planes to 726 planes usable. 

 

Tell me again how if a 8 city nation declares on Perry, the 8 city one is at disadvantage. If 2 8 city nations attack Perry, Perry is screwed.

 

On the attacking, yes this is a very amazing build. It's more of the glass cannon build. That's why you should be in an alliance which can protect you with a lower tier.  

 

I'm not going to look at current nations, I'm going to look at what's possible with the game mechanism available at this time. It's not my fault people do not play it well given the bounds they've on them. And I've given you exact scores and clear indication on how a 8 city nation can take out Perry. Will it require a bit of teamwork and coordination? Yes. But so will it if fighting two equal powers. Nothing is easy, not at this level, not at the above level, everything requires a bit of work. Same here. The issue at hand is that it isn't a very OP build, it just looks like that because of the air limit but the tank is the counter to it. Warfare isn't mean to be easy. Air is superior here but ground is greatly inferior which makes for an amazing balance. 

 

If a 8 city nation can take you out at that build which a 13 city nation has at that level, any complain of it being too overpowered is simply stupid.  

I'll concede that I don't know how many tanks he had at the time in question, but according to the formula posted by Sheepy, even if he bought 6700 tanks, that would only increase his score by 134(6700*.02). If he were to hit his max of 6700 tanks from his current point of 2865, he'd gain ~77 score. Using the previous score of 988, that would put him at 1065 NS, which make his defensive range 608.57-1420. As I have stated before, the only nations that have a larger number of cities that can attack him have been infra bombed themselves.

 

The civil numbers are right, but the military ones are not. Using the score formula provided by Sheepy, he'll have 60 score from soldiers(120,000*.0005), 200 from tanks(10,000*.02), and 144 from planes (720*.2), bringing his military score to 404, and his nation score to, assuming he has no interest in ships, missiles, or nukes, 1119. This number is lower and not in the favor of my argument. That being said, him losing ground control would still leave him with 753 functioning planes(2/3 of 1130). Given that, as well as the fact that he can recruit significantly more aircraft per day than an 8 city opponent, means that he could gain air superiority. Now's he's fighting 120k infantry, and 5k tanks. Now Perry has some options open to him. 1)He can buy infra, increasing his military caps, giving him the ability to fight back. 2)He can use his air superiority to attack 8 city nation's ground troops, giving his ground troops a fighting chance.

 

Yes, if 2 8 city nations attack Perry, he's going to have problems. But what if Perry has a buddy with a similar military size to his? If the 8 city nations can find friends to attack Perry, certainly Perry would be able to find a friend to attack the 8 city nations.

 

That's fine, but some consideration should still be given to the problem if 98% of the community is unaware of how to even attempt fixing it. This fix could be as simple as a better explanation of how war works (the wiki still claims that ground control reduces an opponents air force to 50%). I can accept that it will take work and coordination. It's why I don't support massively changing the scoring system. Players shouldn't be able to walk over others in either direction.

 

I maintain that the build is OP. 1) It has more flexibility than other builds. 2) The nation with more planes can use those planes to hit enemy ground troops, the nation with more ground troops can't use the ground troops to hit planes. 3) The advantage offered by air superiority is greater than the advantage offered by ground control (50%-67%).

 

This to me means either the cities should have more weight to represent their potential, planes should be capped on population too, or the way ground control and air superiority work need to change.

 

I would also support a wider training program (using objectives?) or information availability for fighting wars.

Pizza

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll concede that I don't know how many tanks he had at the time in question, but according to the formula posted by Sheepy, even if he bought 6700 tanks, that would only increase his score by 134(6700*.02). If he were to hit his max of 6700 tanks from his current point of 2865, he'd gain ~77 score. Using the previous score of 988, that would put him at 1065 NS, which make his defensive range 608.57-1420. As I have stated before, the only nations that have a larger number of cities that can attack him have been infra bombed themselves.

 

The civil numbers are right, but the military ones are not. Using the score formula provided by Sheepy, he'll have 60 score from soldiers(120,000*.0005), 200 from tanks(10,000*.02), and 144 from planes (720*.2), bringing his military score to 404, and his nation score to, assuming he has no interest in ships, missiles, or nukes, 1119. This number is lower and not in the favor of my argument. That being said, him losing ground control would still leave him with 753 functioning planes(2/3 of 1130). Given that, as well as the fact that he can recruit significantly more aircraft per day than an 8 city opponent, means that he could gain air superiority. Now's he's fighting 120k infantry, and 5k tanks. Now Perry has some options open to him. 1)He can buy infra, increasing his military caps, giving him the ability to fight back. 2)He can use his air superiority to attack 8 city nation's ground troops, giving his ground troops a fighting chance.

 

Yes, if 2 8 city nations attack Perry, he's going to have problems. But what if Perry has a buddy with a similar military size to his? If the 8 city nations can find friends to attack Perry, certainly Perry would be able to find a friend to attack the 8 city nations.

 

That's fine, but some consideration should still be given to the problem if 98% of the community is unaware of how to even attempt fixing it. This fix could be as simple as a better explanation of how war works (the wiki still claims that ground control reduces an opponents air force to 50%). I can accept that it will take work and coordination. It's why I don't support massively changing the scoring system. Players shouldn't be able to walk over others in either direction.

 

I maintain that the build is OP. 1) It has more flexibility than other builds. 2) The nation with more planes can use those planes to hit enemy ground troops, the nation with more ground troops can't use the ground troops to hit planes. 3) The advantage offered by air superiority is greater than the advantage offered by ground control (50%-67%).

 

This to me means either the cities should have more weight to represent their potential, planes should be capped on population too, or the way ground control and air superiority work need to change.

 

I would also support a wider training program (using objectives?) or information availability for fighting wars.

 

Oh yes, you're right. I had forgotten to change the base score in the score calculator I've. Just goes in my favour as you said :P 

 

Luke, a downside of this build is, the person has a -1m daily revenue, maybe more. It's a powerful offensive military build but on defensive and economically, it's completely terrible. And your argument of what if he has a similar buddy comes down to who has more numbers? An alliance with more people around will win regardless even in equal terms. 

 

I agree there can be a lot more information provided on how things are militarily. That will be a step I had support. 

 

My only point regardless this build is that it is a good build, it can be powerful if used in a smart way but counters do exist. Everything isn't black and white but clearly counters exist to this built. It's like in for example, League of Legends there's an Attack Damage Carry(ADC) with insane attack damage, but a terrible defense. Similarly this is an ADC build but can counter it too with strategy. I think it adds more diversity in military strategy and as long as it can be countered, nothing should be done via mechanics to stop it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love when people say the attacker benefit is too good when Rose got decimated during an offensive blitz during this war. Stop trying to change shit and adapt to the situation and stop being bad at war.

 

This game is not hard to be effective in.

 

Mensa bombed the ever living shit out or Arrgh, but they adapted to that and bit our ankles for weeks. They used their situation advantageously. Nothing is stopping other people from not being dumb.

  • Upvote 2

☾☆

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

I love when people say the attacker benefit is too good when Rose got decimated during an offensive blitz during this war. Stop trying to change shit and adapt to the situation and stop being bad at war.

 

This game is not hard to be effective in.

 

Mensa bombed the ever living shit out or Arrgh, but they adapted to that and bit our ankles for weeks. They used their situation advantageously. Nothing is stopping other people from not being dumb.

 

 

But but but...  I don't want to think about strategy.  I just want to point and click then sit on my ass when I have no military.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love when people say the attacker benefit is too good when Rose got decimated during an offensive blitz during this war. Stop trying to change shit and adapt to the situation and stop being bad at war.

Rose immediately got countered effectively causing them to be on the defense though.

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

What is wrong with offensive nations having an advantage again? It seems fundamental to the politics and to the war parts of this game. Maybe we should rename the whole game to "Politics and War" or something vs the current name.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rose immediately got countered effectively causing them to be on the defense though.

And? Being shitty at going on the offensive doesn't mean they weren't on the offensive. The counter aside, their offensive approach was garbage.

☾☆

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

you guys over looked the ability of the high city nations to purchase more military than the nations they are hitting with less military.

 

That 13 city nation can buy 40% more military every day than the 8 city nation they are fighting.  And if they had enough slots before they got knocked down, they also can produce 40% more resources as well.

 

So that attacker can use that 40% bonus recoup any loses in air done by city 8, and also to start picking off the 8 city's tanks as well.

 

Lets not kid ourselves here, if you guys didn't think it would give you a huge advantage, you would not do it.  I have a small raid buster, who does a modified form of what you guys do because its a great way to stomp people out.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps instead of infrastructure being the determining factor for score it should be the number of improvements being used. in the current system a nation that is built with 23 improvements (and lets say 15 of them are military based) but enough infra for 6 obviously has an advantage so large that it takes away all sense of competition at that level of player. this is ok in the shortterm since it allows a once bigger built nation to have somewhat of a functioning economy (with additional resources coming in) but also the safety of not being perennially in range of overpowering foes.

 

but an argument could be had that it is to the detriment of the game as a whole if they stay down at this level and basically just spawn kill (which we see to some extent). if you make score a function of improvements used, a beaten down nation that still has plans to fight can keep their improvements and fight with nations more equal in military strength. if a nation wants to take a breather and build up a bit more, they can decom some of their military improvements and hit a safer score

 

i dont think a 1:1 infra to improvement score is wise (and i dont have a suggestion for what a good replacement would be at this time) but i think this process would be able to be self policed more. say a nation like me (that currently has 54 improvements per city) gets knocked down to 200 infra in each city. the econ i would get from resources alone is pretty decent and i could try to just swim in that line of income if i only keep my 19 basic mining and 12 advanced industry improvements (and a few barracks/factories for good measure). however if my score is based on improvements i would be worth lets call it 25 improvements per city, putting me back into range of people that could steal more of these resources im attempting to securely harvest. this puts me in a position where i got to do something, be it decom my other improvements or get back into the fold and build up some more military improvements to protect myself from people that can actually cause damage/steal a significant portion from me (this creates incentive right?)

 

in this system, the desired outcome of people that want to fight are still in range with people that can be more of an equal match. people that want to hang real low and circumvent any real danger will have a harder time, and the truly new nations that have 800 total infra and 16 improvements across 2 cities can get their feet wet a little longer before getting into the deep end

 

that or this suggestion could be complete crap. it was a bit off the top of my head   :lol:

Edited by seabasstion
  • Upvote 1
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.