The problems with strength ratings.

[Fox Fire]

Again you continue to prove your ignorance on the matter.

 

Yes, and you ignore the parts where I talk about doing this strat myself. Trying to get this changed a year ago. And let me bold the quote you've already used to make my exact point for me. Thank you for varifying that this is a problem that I've known about, fought against over a year ago, and am knowledgeable about. But with Arrgh HIGHLIGHTING how this mechanic is poorly balanced, it's much easier to have an open discussion about it. So once again I thank Arrgh, and you specifically for helping me make my case. Without your help in showing what I've known for the last year to be the case on a broad scale we would not be able to have the possibility of fixing the problem.

Well let me know when you all finally stop being butthurt and creating problems enough that I can actually play a game. Preferably sooner than later, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't see this issue being resolved any time soon.

[Ogaden]

I see the point of the game is fun, not growth

[Samdoo]

The biggest change for me would be reducing damage scaling. Immense triumphs lead to you losing basically nothing and your opponent losing basically everything.

 

The real reason we've done so well lately is that we hit hard and hit fast and wipe out most of the military forces that could be directed against us within the first couple hours of war. We declare on nations with larger militaries all the time, and coordinate to take them down.

 

This is something I full agree on.. A war is 2 battles, pretty much anything afterwards is a further beat down. It is what allows 1 nation to attack many easily and not have the nation be able to do anything. 

 

If 3 nations attack someone and they get beat down cause there was 6 battles that would be nice. Right now you can have someone go in do 2 battles,  and "peace raid". 

 

Not sure why this point wasn`t brought up more.. Even if the score change was to happen the damage scaling would show up even more. (and we`d all be back here saying damage scaling is too high.)

[Prefontaine]

I see the point of the game is fun

and you have fun by fighting, right? This change will provide you with a chance of more of a fight.

[Fox Fire]

And just to be fair and clarify, I'm not opposed to your suggested mechanics changes. I'm just opposed to the manner you're presenting it. Whatever your motivation, this post is entirely directed at the actions of Arrgh and fighting the tactics they use. Exactly that, is brought up throughout the entire OP. It's a thread about Arrgh. But with that being said.....

Would your suggestion be an improvement? Maybe so. Would it be a fix? I highly doubt it. I'm willing to bet that if Sheepy added this in game, we would all be here having this same discussion in less than a month. 

At this point IDC what the mechanics are. I just want to see something stick for once. At some point, everyone is going to have to accept the mechanics for what they are and realize that these browser, math based nation sim games can never be perfect. Every single one of them is and always will be flawed to some extent.

Conclusion: Just figure something out, stick with it and STFU, everyone. Please....

[Prefontaine]

And just to be fair and clarify, I'm not opposed to your suggested mechanics changes. I'm just opposed to the manner you're presenting it. Whatever your motivation, this post is entirely directed at the actions of Arrgh and fighting the tactics they use. Exactly that, is brought up throughout the entire OP. It's a thread about Arrgh. But with that being said.....

 

Get your head out of your ass for a minute and you might be able to think clearly on this. The thread is about fixing the score being so heavily slated/stacked towards infra. I also mentioned how low infra + still having high improvements is a problem, as well as the declare ranges which are systemic from the score rating system currently. I brought this up over a year ago, hell it might even been in some of the radio show mechanic segments. Arrgh is simply providing the example of what is the problem with it. I could have written the OP from the entire perspective of me doing it, and my personal past experiences over the last year with it that have no connection with Arrgh, but it's much easier to simply point at the thing that's going on and go "See? That's what I've been talking about". Which is why I use words like highlight, and provide an example. It's not like Arrgh found a brand new brilliant mechanic. It's not like it's suddenly a problem because Arrgh is doing it. It's a problem that has been around a -long- time. It's a problem that's been abused in the past but happened on smaller scales so fewer !@#$ were given. If a handful of people of people are able to game the system it's less likely to cause a stir then when 50 do, and so forth. 

 

I'm not trying to say Arrgh is shit. I'm merely saying the tactic that existed before Arrgh even existed that is now being employeed on a mass scale is poor and needs to be fixed. You can place your head back up your ass now.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Prefontaine

[Fox Fire]

Get your head out of your ass for a minute and you might be able to think clearly on this. The thread is about fixing the score being so heavily slated/stacked towards infra. I also mentioned how low infra + still having high improvements is a problem, as well as the declare ranges which are systemic from the score rating system currently. I brought this up over a year ago, hell it might even been in some of the radio show mechanic segments. Arrgh is simply providing the example of what is the problem with it. I could have written the OP from the entire perspective of me doing it, and my personal past experiences over the last year with it that have no connection with Arrgh, but it's much easier to simply point at the thing that's going on and go "See? That's what I've been talking about". Which is why I use words like highlight, and provide an example. It's not like Arrgh found a brand new brilliant mechanic. It's not like it's suddenly a problem because Arrgh is doing it. It's a problem that has been around a -long- time. It's a problem that's been abused in the past but happened on smaller scales so fewer !@#$ were given. If a handful of people of people are able to game the system it's less likely to cause a stir then when 50 do, and so forth. 

 

I'm not trying to say Arrgh shit. I'm merely using the tactic that existed before Arrgh existed that is now being employeed is poor and needs to be fixed. You can place your head back up your ass now.

I understand what your suggestion is, I know there is a "problem" and I don't doubt that you've brought it up before. I don't think we're going to agree about how much this thread has to do with Arrgh, but I don't care to argue about it. We're obviously not going to come anywhere close to agreeing on your intentions. 

I would even support the mechanics changes (because IDC) if I didn't think it would end up with the same circular, continuous debate. This is why I'm sitting at 0 NS. Normally I would say that "something needs to change", but I've had enough of that, clearly. 

So with that being said, I'll sit back and watch where this goes. Good luck with your idea.

[Spooner]

Why are you here if you don't play?

[Hereno]

i can see why you'd accuse pre of making this thread in his own interests, especially when his buddies and the rest of the high-infra long-term people who want to try to stay on top of everything forever are all pushing it, but i don't think that's the case. i could be wrong.

 

but in reality, the consequence of this isn't just for arrgh but for every alliance that will ever lose a war.

 

the only people who really benefit from it in the tactical sense are the weak alliances with newbie players who can't fend off arrgh and are like me and too proud to pay reps to raiders, shit like that

 

i can see where they're coming from and i can see why sheepy would see it as a problem. it's a complicated issue. but, really, they're just trying to undo all of the changes we made to make this game not cybernations. letting the underdog have a chance, diversifying military, adding in cities, they're trying to change all of it to make it more like cybernations and i just don't want to !@#$ play that game. there's nothing WRONG with is but stop trying to make this that, because it isn't.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Hereno

[Wayne]

and you have fun by fighting, right? This change will provide you with a chance of more of a fight.

 

 

You say that, but it'll require people to actually build and maintain large armies over long periods of time.  Orbis don't like doing that...

[Fox Fire]

Why are you here if you don't play?

Well for one, I've been here since before you knew it existed. But more importantly, I was playing less than a month ago and I do intend to continue playing if the community can ever agree on a war system. I want to play a game and know that it will be the same game when I wake up the next morning. The last ridiculous war change and it's resulting backlash was it for me. I'm quite sure the war system is not done changing and I'm tired of it. Brings back unfond memories of Sheepys last game which abruptly ended shortly after this same exact thing became a debate.

 

 

i can see why you'd accuse pre of making this thread in his own interests, especially when his buddies and the rest of the high-infra long-term people who want to try to stay on top of everything forever are all pushing it, but i don't think that's the case. i could be wrong.

 

but in reality, the consequence of this isn't just for arrgh but for every alliance that will ever lose a war.

 

the only people who really benefit from it in the tactical sense are the weak alliances with newbie players who can't fend off arrgh and are like me and too proud to pay reps to raiders, shit like that

 

i can see where they're coming from and i can see why sheepy would see it as a problem. it's a complicated issue. but, really, they're just trying to undo all of the changes we made to make this game not cybernations. letting the underdog have a chance, diversifying military, adding in cities, they're trying to change all of it to make it more like cybernations and i just don't want to !@#$ play that game. there's nothing WRONG with is but stop trying to make this that, because it isn't.

I don't think they're trying to make it like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but trying to simplify it perhaps? Maybe. I once said in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) blog that (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) works because of it's simplicity. Not to say (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) doesn't have it's flaws, but all these games have flaws. However, (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) held a legacy and actually did work just fine for a long time and with much more consistent mechanics as far as I can recall. 

Edited March 19, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Dwynn]

I'm just going to chime in here... and yes I know what I'm talking about

 

The system is flawed, it has been brought up on multiple occasions over the last year or more. As Pre mentioned, there are a multitude of issues going on that are all creating this umbrella of poor mechanics.

 

1) I've long campaigned for the removal of functionality to improvements and projects if you don't have the infrastructure to support them. You're REQUIRED to have the infrastructure to purchase them, it needs to be maintained in order to keep them functioning.

 

2) The current "military-only" builds. Now first, let me say this. I was a long, loud voice for the option for raiding to be profitable. As profitable as being an economic build. I've also long been a proponent of a balanced system. It is currently imbalanced. This is two-fold. The declare range (which Sheepy attempted to fix and didn't) and the fact that score is tied so heavily to infra. The secondary part of this exponentially increases the problem with the first part of it.

 

Now I could give a good rat's ass (or a bad rat's ass for that matter) about the politics here. But Arrgh knows that the mechanics of the game they're using are imbalanced. Good on them for using it, but don't be surprised when mass-use causes a change. I could cite examples of this from other worlds in which I was a major component of, but I will keep this strictly devoted here.

 

There have been a few proposals already in this thread that could take steps to fix this. Are they going to fix everything? Of course not.

 

Which brings me to the last point I'm going to bring up on this. For anyone who states "set one thing and leave it"... are you new to gaming in general? Literally every game ever now rolls out patches, nerfs, adjustements, content to keep players playing and interested in the game. Not only that, if Sheepy were to set the game up and walk away simply reaping his rewards, you'd end up with games like "other worlds" that are dying. Obviously not what he, or you want, as a dead game leaves you with nothing to "have fun" playing.

 

I did take the time to listen to Sheepy's podcast. While it is an interesting new addition to the game if he rolls it out, it does nothing to address the current broken mechanics in place.

 

Now please, someone tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. This should be fun

[Fox Fire]

Which brings me to the last point I'm going to bring up on this. For anyone who states "set one thing and leave it"... are you new to gaming in general? Literally every game ever now rolls out patches, nerfs, adjustements, content to keep players playing and interested in the game.

 

I'm not saying updates should never happen. I'm saying there should be some consistency. When I first joined PaW it was an entirely different game. How long have you been here?

Updates (to game mechanics specifically) should be made only when necessary, not just when people complain about some "perceived" problem. We could spend ten thousand years and picking out "problems" in this game, but at some point we have to accept it for what it is. This game has changed more in 3 months than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) changed in 3 years. This game, like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is a very long term game. I want to play one game. Not a new one every other month. 

A change here and there, only under intense consideration is perfectly fine. Nobody likes it when a game comes out with a patch that solves one problem and creates another. Nobody likes a war game where a patch is made every month that changes the way the game is played. I mean, sure, I love all the regular updates on Minecraft. But all of those are purely productive, additional, and do not change the way the game is played. 

Did anyone enjoy the DICE release of BF4? I don't think so. Did anyone enjoy the ten billion inconsistent updates that followed and always ended in a broken game? I don't think so. Does EA games totally suck? Yes indeed. 

 

Not only that, if Sheepy were to set the game up and walk away simply reaping his rewards, you'd end up with games like "other worlds" that are dying. Obviously not what he, or you want, as a dead game leaves you with nothing to "have fun" playing.

 

He already did that once. Do you know the name Anson? Or is that ancient history? 

Sheepy already created one great game and in the end, he left it. Eventually, as the game progressed, people (naturally) started picking out "problems". This built up into a huge, never ending debate and the ultimate death of the game as a whole. 

That's what I see happening now. Hopefully Sheepy is more committed this time and it doesn't lead to the death of the game, but it's that same cycle of nobody ever being pleased that we are in right now. 

[Mayor]

You just don't know what you're talking about newb. ( ) Jk. . .

 

Honestly I don't care about improvements being like you said, if that was changed, I would just go full military set-up. Not going to stop raiding and in fact it would probably be worse since I would need to raid more often to make money just to stay afloat.

I am concerned about a score change though, if this is changed, all it encourages is blob alliances that do nothing but build endlessly and can easily defend each-other in huge groups. A nation that gets to 4000 infra and has only say 50,000 or so solider kills: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6206

 

Anyways if that was changed then I could have more targets to raid which would be fun. . .but if the end result is raiding is eliminated (aka. the score change, the military recruitment nerf, blob alliances doing nothing but building infra and getting to over 20 cities, etc.)

It is just boring. . . those nations need to be destroyed like everyone else has at some point or another. A great benefit of a score change is that I would most likely be able to raid them, until they build incredibly huge military and have endless wealth which raises their score just high enough that I can't reach them unless I'm willing to spend millions on infra again only for it to be destroyed by VE. . 

 

My solution would be to have a cap on alliance members, say 50 or something but nothing more, force people to kick out in-actives and to be more selective with their members. Sure others can align to the other alliances and be in the same group, but it is easier to be more independent when you are in control of members and the bank and such. I am not against group wars etc. and a challenge but raiders are in the population minority and if the game turned into a build infra, alliance war, rebuild all that infra, cycle repeat (except for the few 5000 infra behemoths that avoid it all) then I would probably just play another more aggressive game. I think war should be encouraged, and with everyone having protectorates to alliances with 150 members. . . then if that is the case, then if a score change is thought necessary then I don't think war should be nerfed at all and the "strategies" Sheepy proposed should be more effective. Maybe be able to choose multiple strategies, also have more powerful bonuses, and also have economic strategies, so people who want those can use them and don't all chose unanimously "Moneybags" etc. to horde their cash and wait for alliance mates to defend their ass. With economic strategies then they would have even more money (for me to raid), and with an alliance cap the members who don't contribute would be weeded out to different alliances that I can possibly raid, and then with the score change and improvement nerf the people complaining about that would be more in range and on equal footing.

 

I am just rambling on though at this point. . 

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Has anyone ever suggested the idea of cities being destroy-able? As in, if there's a battle and a city reached 0 Infra there would be say a 25% chance the entire city (including all improvements and military units it is supported) would be destroyed.

[Fox Fire]

Has anyone ever suggested the idea of cities being destroy-able? As in, if there's a battle and a city reached 0 Infra there would be say a 25% chance the entire city (including all improvements and military units it is supported) would be destroyed.

Was suggested for nukes a few times and always shot down. Likely never going to happen.

[Dwynn]

I'm not saying updates should never happen. I'm saying there should be some consistency. When I first joined PaW it was an entirely different game. How long have you been here?[...snip...]

Longer than you I agree that there should be some stability in changes and to make massive changes as little as possible. But changes that address a broken mechanic need to be made. I'm well aware of the game you're talking about. It died for MANY reasons. Stagnated development was not one of them.

 

You just don't know what you're talking about newb. ( ) Jk. . .

 

Honestly I don't care about improvements being like you said, if that was changed, I would just go full military set-up. Not going to stop raiding and in fact it would probably be worse since I would need to raid more often to make money just to stay afloat.

I am concerned about a score change though, if this is changed, all it encourages is blob alliances that do nothing but build endlessly and can easily defend each-other in huge groups. A nation that gets to 4000 infra and has only say 50,000 or so solider kills: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6206

 

Anyways if that was changed then I could have more targets to raid which would be fun. . .but if the end result is raiding is eliminated (aka. the score change, the military recruitment nerf, blob alliances doing nothing but building infra and getting to over 20 cities, etc.)

It is just boring. . . those nations need to be destroyed like everyone else has at some point or another. A great benefit of a score change is that I would most likely be able to raid them, until they build incredibly huge military and have endless wealth which raises their score just high enough that I can't reach them unless I'm willing to spend millions on infra again only for it to be destroyed by VE. . 

 

My solution would be to have a cap on alliance members, say 50 or something but nothing more, force people to kick out in-actives and to be more selective with their members. Sure others can align to the other alliances and be in the same group, but it is easier to be more independent when you are in control of members and the bank and such. I am not against group wars etc. and a challenge but raiders are in the population minority and if the game turned into a build infra, alliance war, rebuild all that infra, cycle repeat (except for the few 5000 infra behemoths that avoid it all) then I would probably just play another more aggressive game. I think war should be encouraged, and with everyone having protectorates to alliances with 150 members. . . then if that is the case, then if a score change is thought necessary then I don't think war should be nerfed at all and the "strategies" Sheepy proposed should be more effective. Maybe be able to choose multiple strategies, also have more powerful bonuses, and also have economic strategies, so people who want those can use them and don't all chose unanimously "Moneybags" etc. to horde their cash and wait for alliance mates to defend their ass. With economic strategies then they would have even more money (for me to raid), and with an alliance cap the members who don't contribute would be weeded out to different alliances that I can possibly raid, and then with the score change and improvement nerf the people complaining about that would be more in range and on equal footing.

 

I am just rambling on though at this point. . 

 

I agree that the politics aspect of the game make it tough. But that's the way the community plays. If Sheepy were to combat that, he would have to implement things to incentivize war. This was discussed ages ago, and the result was an entirely broken implementation of treasures.

 

I don't agree capping alliances at 50 is good. Nor do I think creating incentives for smaller alliances good. As it was with colorstock in the old days, you'd simply have blob alliances creating colonies to reap the rewards. I don't envy Sheepy in the least here. The game has progressed to the point that no matter what changes he makes, people will be unhappy. What he needs to address though is the fact that the mechanic is broken. His podcast he acknowledges that much at least, even if I don't think the war policies is the answer, at least he recognizes the problem.

[Fox Fire]

Longer than you I agree that there should be some stability in changes and to make massive changes as little as possible. But changes that address a broken mechanic need to be made. I'm well aware of the game you're talking about. It died for MANY reasons. Stagnated development was not one of them.

 

 

I agree that the politics aspect of the game make it tough. But that's the way the community plays. If Sheepy were to combat that, he would have to implement things to incentivize war. This was discussed ages ago, and the result was an entirely broken implementation of treasures.

 

I don't agree capping alliances at 50 is good. Nor do I think creating incentives for smaller alliances good. As it was with colorstock in the old days, you'd simply have blob alliances creating colonies to reap the rewards. I don't envy Sheepy in the least here. The game has progressed to the point that no matter what changes he makes, people will be unhappy. What he needs to address though is the fact that the mechanic is broken. His podcast he acknowledges that much at least, even if I don't think the war policies is the answer, at least he recognizes the problem.

Well then I think we agree. All I want to see right now is a system that works. One that isn't going to be changed once someone doesn't like it. I quite honestly do not give a !@#$ what that system is at this point as long as it sticks. I would be content with Pre's design, the design we have now, the one we had before that, etc, etc. I think the biggest problem is this cycle of never ending displeasure.

I miss this game and I'd like to play....

[Mayor]

Has anyone ever suggested the idea of cities being destroy-able? As in, if there's a battle and a city reached 0 Infra there would be say a 25% chance the entire city (including all improvements and military units it is supported) would be destroyed.

 

I don't agree, that would just create an even bigger gap between militarists and the people who just want to build and not fight. Eventually they will be so far out of reach that their cities could not be destroyed anyways. They could just fund other people to fight for them while they remained invincible. I am not totally against the proposed score range for this reason that they would be more in range of others.

[Mayor]

Longer than you

 

Fox Fire deleted her nation once so yes she actually has been here a bit longer then you have unless you also deleted. We were both in Socialist International over a year ago.

[Fox Fire]

Fox Fire deleted her nation once so yes she actually has been here a bit longer then you have unless you also deleted. We were both in Socialist International over a year ago.

I've deleted my nation a few times.

[Mayor]

I've deleted my nation a few times.

 

I just noticed that actually . . as much as I know you have started anew three times now.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Mayor

[Fox Fire]

I just noticed that actually . . as much as I know you have started anew three times now.

IDK how many times it's been. I know I was the second moderator of PaW so it's been a while. 

Member Since 03 Dec 2013 is what my profile says. Course I was banned once. I don't think my forum profile was deleted.....

*Shrugs*

 

EDIT: Those were good days. Not my mod days, but even before that. The community got along great and we didn't have so many conflicting personal opinions. People just got along until (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PT players flooded in.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Mayor]

IDK how many times it's been. I know I was the second moderator of PaW so it's been a while. 

Member Since 03 Dec 2013 is what my profile says. Course I was banned once. I don't think my forum profile was deleted.....

*Shrugs*

 

EDIT: Those were good days. Not my mod days, but even before that. The community got along great and we didn't have so many conflicting personal opinions. People just got along until (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PT players flooded in.

 

I never played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) or PT, but was a hardcore NS player. I tried Pixel Nations and just really forgot about it, I tried (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) back in 2006 but just didn't like it. NPO tried to get all NS players over to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) but I just went back to the Pacific.

 

Edit: anyways I digress, keep talking about the changes guys!

Edited March 19, 2016 by Mayor

[Wayne]

Sheepys mechanic is not broken, it's just poorly designed.  A broken mechanic implies that it's not working as intended.  The mechanic is working, it's just not having the outcome some think it should.  How should Economy builds vs Military builds be weighted?   This I feel is the real issue, people expect too much. 

 

What are the disadvantages of being a low level raider?  I lose more money a day paying my bills then I ever made each day in Mensa due to upkeep, I need to be more active and online frequently, I'm closer to my army limit, meaning one good kicking and I'm totally out the fight, thanks to Sheepys new mechanic.  I need to constantly rebuild and restock. The advantages?  It's fun living on a knifes edge and on a good day I can make a tidy profit, I can be pretty invincible unless drastic actions from the other side are taken.

 

What are the disadvantages of being an high infra econ player?  You are punching above your weight in terms of score, making you a big fat juicy target.  If you are too fat, even holding onto a full military may not be enough to save you.  What are the advantages?  Making dollar and growing by doing nothing at all, you don't need to be as committed to the game and if you feel safe enough, you can leave for a week and come back to the game richer then when you left!  You can last longer in fights due to your infra cushion, you have the means to fight without relying heavily on a war time market.  Once you are too fat, you are pretty much out of harms way.

 

The balance is broken, the time and effort = reward mechanic is all borked.