Jump to content

Changing the Score Formula


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seabasstion makes a great point. If the goal is for war to only occur between equally developed nations then military strength needs to be tied to economic strength. In other words, you shouldn’t be able to have one without the other.

 

A few other ways to tie Military and Economy together:

 

1. Cap military by population (better roll playing) -You could even cap improvement limits by population rather than hard caps to allow for more city scalability and customization.

 

2. Allow military improvements to be destroyed more easily in war - or even targeted (I like this one)

 

3. Give cities a bigger impact on score

 

4. Separate Economic score from Military score and use Military score for declare range

 

5. Add specialized infra types (Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Technology, etc.)

 

6. Increase the upkeep cost of military (please don’t!)

  • Upvote 2
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.

 

 

Of course if you trade your entire economy for military, sacrificing millions a day in potential income and paying huge upkeep costs, you can have some military advantage. That's only fair. What we're arguing is that it's not a imbalanced/broken advantage, it's a modest one that can be countered.

 

Is the small raid buster you're referring to Croc Dundee? He put up a good fight but we had someone with a bigger air force down declare on him within a few hours after your blitz, and BK finished the job the next day. He's a year old nation that could have a massively profitable economy by now, instead you pay him millions in bank aid to sit around in the low scores waiting for a fight. When the fight finally comes he's useful and powerful sure, but also expensive and far from invincible.

 

Edit: On reflection and working out the numbers I think it's a little bit too hard to beat in the most extreme case where someone has a huge number of cities, almost nonexistent infra, and max aircraft, but there's an existing system in place for this - just slightly adjust the population limit on aircraft.

Edited by Woot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually got around and investigated this finally. No... I completely disagree with this. If anything you have just made the scores of a nation even easier to change. 

 

The point of this change was to make it harder to change your ns, This would do the opposite. I used the NS score greiland offered on my nation. my nation now at what I call " half millitary" changes my score 300 ns, with this change my NS 600 instead. This would actually make my nation even harder to defend from raiders.. And like you`ve shown they can simply just drop more infra, and having 0 military would hurt me even more.. Surprise. 

 

As it stands the more NS your nation has the more nations you can war with, This becomes super obvious in the mid-tier nations. at peace with the score changes the range of nations i`d have to defend would be 777 Ns range, when my score goes up I`d have to defend against a larger range of 1280. This big of a score change still keeps me in raiders range even though I`m trying to defend. 

 

Yes something needs to happen, This is not it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seabasstion makes a great point. If the goal is for war to only occur between equally developed nations then military strength needs to be tied to economic strength. In other words, you shouldn’t be able to have one without the other.

 

A few other ways to tie Military and Economy together:

 

1. Cap military by population (better roll playing) -You could even cap improvement limits by population rather than hard caps to allow for more city scalability and customization.

 

2. Allow military improvements to be destroyed more easily in war - or even targeted (I like this one)

 

3. Give cities a bigger impact on score

 

4. Separate Economic score from Military score and use Military score for declare range

 

5. Add specialized infra types (Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Technology, etc.)

 

6. Increase the upkeep cost of military (please don’t!)

I like where Jessica is going here, and I'd like to add my own opinions on top of hers.

 

1. I wouldn't touch improvement limits with cities due to the fact of nukes. Scaling military by population does make nukes more valuable, but please don't touch improvements in the process.

 

2. You can target them... With missiles, but that's still 300 infra for only 1 improvement which doesn't seem as valuable.

 

3. Yes, yes and all of my yes. City directly impacts your military potential, and they are indestructible.

 

4. I actually really like this all of a sudden. But what would be considered economic growth? GDP?

 

5. Whatever floats your boat, that's super complicated though.

 

6. I only approve of increasing aircraft upkeep. Leave everything else alone.

Edited by Hooves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can add population requirement for improvements, for eg.

 

every Oil well requires 10 people to operate

every Oil Power plant requires 100 people to operate

every Hospital requires 500 people to operate

etc.

 

Also, every military unit needs to be operated by people so you need to have population requirement for each military unit and its base, for eg.

 

every Factory requires 100 people to operate + every Tank requires 5 Soldiers to operate

every Air Base requires 100 people to operate + every Plane requires 5 Soldiers to operate

 

The Nation's population requirement is a sum total of all the people required to operate all the improvements and military unit it owns.

 

If your Nation population is below the requirement you can not buy additional military unit neither you can purchase more improvements so you need to increase infra to increase population.

 

If during war your Nation population falls below the population requirement, you need to switch off certain improvements in able to buy some more military units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the war range formula actually changing?

 

Or could it be something like if a nation with 14 cities has such low infra (but still has all his military), that they can attack and a nation with 8 cities and so get an unfair advantage  - then nations, in that same alliance of the member who got attacked, that have the same or less number of cities of the aggressor can attack them back regardless of the war range

 

Trying to make it even - wars should be even based more on the number of cities which determines the size of the military

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the war range formula actually changing?

 

Or could it be something like if a nation with 14 cities has such low infra (but still has all his military), that they can attack and a nation with 8 cities and so get an unfair advantage  - then nations, in that same alliance of the member who got attacked, that have the same or less number of cities of the aggressor can attack them back regardless of the war range

 

Trying to make it even - wars should be even based more on the number of cities which determines the size of the military

 

If your members had enough military in the first place this wouldnt be a problem. If there is no mil, it doesnt matter what size the raiders are. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your members had enough military in the first place this wouldnt be a problem. If there is no mil, it doesnt matter what size the raiders are. 

 

That is a pointless reason - 'enough military' I'm sorry but you have 12 cities, and are attacking people with 8-10 cities 

It doesnt matter how much they militarise because you are always going to be on top of them

 

It is deterring people from the game which makes pnw less attractive to some existing longer term members - shouldn't we all be encouraging a change that will help keep new members in the game?

Edited by allilee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

it looks good bcos the influence of Infrastructure is decreased....but I would suggest a better option like double its original infrastructure denominator to 50 or 60 in order to bring people closer within their war gap.

Edited by Arthur James
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it looks good bcos the influence of Infrastructure is decreased....but I would suggest a better option like double its original infrastructure denominator to 50 or 60 in order to bring people closer within their war gap.

 

Jesus christ.

  • Upvote 2

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside -- projects shouldn't be doubled in the score calculation.

 

The only one that really helps with war-waging is the Propaganda project, the others are merely economic/affect infrastructure loss (which is a byproduct of war, really).

Edited by Syrup
  • Upvote 1

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

As an aside -- projects shouldn't be doubled in the score calculation.

 

The only one that really helps with war-waging is the Propaganda project, the others are merely economic/affect infrastructure loss (which is a byproduct of war, really).

 

Each project signifies that the nation has at least 5,000 infrastructure. While the projects themselves may not be particularly indicative of a player's war capacity, nation with high cities or infra are the ones with projects, and weighing projects more (which generally aren't destroyed when a nation gets beat down) keeps them out of the range of smaller nations that they shouldn't be fighting.

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

Each project signifies that the nation has at least 5,000 infrastructure. While the projects themselves may not be particularly indicative of a player's war capacity, nation with high cities or infra are the ones with projects, and weighing projects more (which generally aren't destroyed when a nation gets beat down) keeps them out of the range of smaller nations that they shouldn't be fighting.

 

LOL.  The extra 10 score from a project is unnecessary and just another minor issue put on top of some major, major issues.  That extra score is only the same as 200 tanks or 20 planes with the new formula, so hardly game changing.  I don't even really mind the change to the city scores.  That probably makes sense if taken on it's own. 

 

It's the combination of changes that is truly ridiculous.  The phrase using a sledgehammer to crack a nut comes to mind.  Rather than minor tweeks to balance the game, Sheepy has taken several major changes and decided to implement them all at once in some kind of hit and hope approach.  The combination of the project score change, the city score change, the massively raised score from tanks and planes and the halving of infrastructure score makes Politics and War a dull game for those who want to grow and grow and still be able to keep everyone else beaten down.  People can already counter the builds this is intended to hurt, so there is absolutely no reason to make the changes so overpowered.  I believe it will ruin what little new player retention there is and it will lead to serious problems for the game, although there will probably be another knee jerk reaction from Sheepy to try to fix it down the line but I fear by then it will be too late.  Making the rich richer and more dominant at the expense of the poor isn't a good game growing strategy (everyone starts off poor).

 

I've already explained it all with figures.  If my ultra-military build can be totally beaten by infra huggers, I dread to think what can happen to the majority of players.  Maybe Arrgh will find a build and a range to sit in where they can do even more widespread damage while even making a nett income but it's just not going to be an interesting enough game to play.  It's not all about damage, it's meant to be fun.  Even if Arrgh and other alliances can find a range to sit in, it's no good sitting there watching the ultra rich control the economy, the politics and the military whilst playing their own boring farming game.  The game will be all about top tier.  Control the top tier and you are untouchable, until it comes to the point where you're the only guys playing any more.

 

It should be difficult to beat a fully militarised nation.  It should require some level of coordination or strategy rather than just being able to choose any one of 20 super infra nations in your alliance to beat anyone down who dares enter your range.

 

I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time writing in these threads though so I'll just stop there.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just checked out who's in range of me now that my score jumped up by about 500 points. Had a look at UPN since I know they have a bunch of big nations with no military. I see Saru is out of range despite having more cities and way more infra. Even Aenir's out of range, he has 3 extra cities and 13000 more infra... and he could buy an 18th city with 1800 infra in it and still be out of range. I don't even have max ground forces, that would be an extra 380 score for me.

 

So I ran the math for what a typically militarized nation with 14 cities like me could declare on. I would say 2000 infra/city is pretty typical at that level, I only have 1500-1600 but most other nations will be around 2000. So 14 cities + 14x2000 infra + 5 projects + max air and ground = 3040 score, with a down-declare range of 2280.

 

A nation with 20 cities and 2300 infra/city with zero military would have 2280 score.

 

So if the 14 city nation has even just a single ship or missile or nuke, he won't be able to declare on someone with 6 additional cities and an extra 18000 infra as long as they have no military. In other words, if you don't want to get attacked, just delete all your military. Sounds logical.

 

BTW that 20 city nation would also be able to declare on heavily militarized nation with as little as 7-9 cities depending on infra, ships, missiles, nukes, etc. Just do a double buy right after attacking and the 20 city nation could basically match the small nation's military cap.

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

Just checked out who's in range of me now that my score jumped up by about 500 points. Had a look at UPN since I know they have a bunch of big nations with no military. I see Saru is out of range despite having more cities and way more infra.

 

So I ran the math for what a typically militarized nation with 14 cities like me could declare on. I would say 2000 infra/city is pretty typical at that level, I only have 1500-1600 but most other nations will be around 2000. So 14 cities + 14x2000 infra + 5 projects + max air and ground = 3040 score, with a down-declare range of 2280.

 

A nation with 20 cities and 2300 infra/city with zero military would have 2280 score.

 

So if the 14 city nation has even just a single ship or missile or nuke, he won't be able to declare on someone with 6 additional cities and an extra 18000 infra as long as they have no military. In other words, if you don't want to get attacked, just delete all your military. Sounds logical.

 

BTW that 20 city nation would also be able to declare on heavily militarized nation with as little as 7-9 cities depending on infra, ships, missiles, nukes, etc. Just do a double buy right after attacking and the 20 city nation could basically match the small nation's military cap.

 

But has 0 military so would get stomped by literally everyone? as soon as he builds up he's in range of the big guys. Makes sense to me. Using your scenario, declares on a 9 city nation and then builds up putting him with little military and in range of people with much more military than him. Easy counter.

Edited by Phiney
T7Vrilp.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But has 0 military so would get stomped by literally everyone? as soon as he builds up he's in range of the big guys. Makes sense to me. Using your scenario, declares on a 9 city nation and then builds up putting him with little military and in range of people with much more military than him. Easy counter.

 

If your alliance has nations with 10+ cities then maybe.

Still, I think it's too much to only allow militarized nations to raid zero military nations with way more cities. Increasing the weight of cities and decreasing weight of infra is ok imo, but military score should have stayed the same.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But has 0 military so would get stomped by literally everyone? as soon as he builds up he's in range of the big guys. Makes sense to me. Using your scenario, declares on a 9 city nation and then builds up putting him with little military and in range of people with much more military than him. Easy counter.

The other problem would be with a slightly smaller but still very large city differentials and down-declares.

 

Ex you have a nation with 12 cities, 1800 infra/city, max air/ground, so 1080 planes, 15000 tanks, 180000 soldiers That's 2470 score.

 

That means nations up to 3293 score can down-declare. How much military could a 18 city nation with 2500 infra/city get and still be in range? 1318 score's worth of military. So say 1080 planes, 14660 tanks and 90000 soldiers, only barely less than the 12 city nation. But then the 18 city nation can declare just before day-change and double buy to 1620 planes, 22500 tanks, 270000 soldiers and easily gain either air and ground control on the first attack, still be able to rebuy 1160 tanks, and leave no chance to the 12 city nation to recover. If the 12 city nation has friends in the 16-20 score range, those could possibly help out, but it still makes it way to easy imo for top tier alliances to crush alliances with much smaller nations.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 but it still makes it way to easy imo for top tier alliances to crush alliances with much smaller nations.

 

I'm pretty sure that is the whole point of this update. High tier alliances have a hard time dealing with low tier raiders. Even tho the high tier alliances made that choice and its just how its gonna be, its best to allow them to roll small nations aswell.

 

Congrats you fixed that problem. Now lets just wait a few months and wait for the next o/  

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, all these changes make certain that there's basically zero !@#$ing chance of a round 2 come-back taking place.

 

As someone generally on the winning side of round 1, that's alright I guess. However, for game balance it was a poor decision imo.

  • Upvote 2

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really have a lot to say about this change, but it is completely pointless. The score formula that we had previously was common knowledge. Anyone could build their nations the way that score system favored. So everyone had the same opportunity: those who analyzed the formula well prospered, whereas those who could not do the math suffered disadvantages.

 

We took the rules as given and followed an optimal strategy. But then, the majority of the players who could not grasp the optimal strategy that had build suboptimal nations turned out to be very vocal. Vocal enough such that they retroactively imposed a rule change so that their suboptimal nations become optimal, and the optimal nations become suboptimal.

 

This is not fair, unlike the previous situation. In the previous situation, everyone had the same footing, and those who had built suboptimal nations had only themselves to blame. Now those who can actually do the math are punished. Billions of Orbis dollars of investment is now punished because of the vocal majority who keep losing wars just because they suck at coordination.

 

I cannot really express my disappointment enough. So I won't even try. I am looking forward to the next retroactive rule change when we calculate the optimal builds once again and defeat the same vocal majority.

  • Upvote 2
77oKn5K.png

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.