Jump to content

Seeking Testers - War Policies + Score Formula Change


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

These are the two players at the very limits of my range.  https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=16787https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=9882 A nice broad range of players with a variety of infra and cities.  Many without armies...

 

Again, I ask just how many low infra/high city accounts do we have in PnW?

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Many of the people I fight have more cities than me and could potentially field a much larger army.

They end up in my point range because while I have a very strong standing military... they have little or nothing kept in defense.

 

Which leads to the real problem behind all of this...

 

Many dont want to field any military at all, because they dont want to pay the upkeep cost.

 

They are focused fully on "farming" resources, and cash from commerce... and dont want to be that involved in anything more, beyond checking in daily, and maybe a little more during the very infrequent "declared wars".

 

And so they cry for changes to the game, rather than get more active and involved in playing the game - adapting their play style to both defend themselves and deter attacks from happening in the first place (which would lead to much more active alliances and in turn a more involved game / player base).

 

 

 

And that extreme cant happen, nor anything close... So its a non-issue.

 

These nations with the same amount of cities as you and little/no militaries will likely remain in your range, then, which is intended. I have no issue with you taking on someone who is sacrificing a strong defense for economic benefit.

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

As much as I dislike Arrgh's raiding tactics, I have to say that initially these new values struck me as more of an axe than a scalpel approach.

 

Sorry @ my pirate friends, but you shouldn't be allowed to wreck everyone in your range because you have more cities than them.

 

Alternatively, maybe we shouldn't double and halve values as a first measure. The war system needs tweaking, not just war ranges - from my very limited experience so far.

 

We dont "wreck everyone in [our respective] ranges because [we] have more cities than them."

 

I have 9 cities... and most people I attack have the same or more cities as me.

 

The problem is they are poorly defended, if they have any military at all... and that drives their point total down, while exposing them to easy attack.

 

While I have a very large standing military which drives my point total up, and leaves me able to run through the mass of soft, weak targets easily.

 

 

I wreck people within my range... People with the same or more cities than me...

 

Because they choose to have a weak military or no military at all.

 

Thats it.

 

 

The same holds true for everyone else in Arrgh.

 

And if there are any with a decent military in an alliance we attack... We team up and take them out first.

But they are usually few... And the rest of the "sheep" we then take apart as we please.

And rarely are we countered... and almost never in any coordinated way.

 

We laugh about it... are bored by it.

 

And have been hoping "the change" that would come is people would start playing the game more actively and face us in battle. Build armies and organize against us. Give us a challenge we can enjoy, and enjoy themselves,

 

Not cry for "god" to come save them with his magic code wand.

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

I'd say just a small percentage (1-2% of players). BUT, the point is these people shouldn't be able to attack someone with half the number of cities. The only reason there are high city/low infrastructure nations is because those once large nations where beaten down during the last war and they found a sort of haven for raiding. These are established nations that have just a jack ton of military improvement compared to the nations at that level (and I'm even assuming all parties involved have full military). Sure, these nations are limited by their max units because of population now, but they can build a military to equal the smaller, fully military stocked nation in just 1 day (because of all those military improvements). This makes it impossible to fight back, even with coordination.

 

This is an exploit that Sheepy clearly didn't account for and what this potential fix is attempted to help limit. This update won't stop these type of things from happening either, but it will help give some more breathing room at the lower levels and give them a far chance to establish a sizeable military/cities before entering what has become a death zone for growth.

 

I am pretty battered atm, I can hit someone at 1000 score, 9 cities at the Mensa approved 1500 infra in each city.  I can be hit by someone at around 1800 score, who would be able to field more troops then me, more tanks then me and more planes then me and be able to bring 2 mates of equal size along with him.. 

 

It's not like we are invincible, !@#$ sake one guy tied up Arrgh's top teir on his !@#$ing own...  Arrgh have explained over and over again, we've even gave you the numbers and the tactics needed, you all had a first class lesson in a way to deal with us, yet no one wants to do anything about it other then cry that its unfair.

  • Upvote 2

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty battered atm, I can hit someone at 1000 score, 9 cities at the Mensa approved 1500 infra in each city.  I can be hit by someone at around 1800 score, who would be able to field more troops then me, more tanks then me and more planes then me and be able to bring 2 mates of equal size along with him.. 

 

It's not like we are invincible, !@#$ sake one guy tied up Arrgh's top teir on his !@#$ own...  Arrgh have explained over and over again, we've even gave you the numbers and the tactics needed, you all had a first class lesson in a way to deal with us, yet no one wants to do anything about it other then cry that its unfair.

 

So you're saying that some political and military cooperation would put arrgh down rather quickly?  So much outrage, but nothing is being done by Orbis at large to put a stop to us.  Rather they are only complaining to Sheepy to do their dirty work.

 

Politics and war indeed.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying that some political and military cooperation would put arrgh down rather quickly?  So much outrage, but nothing is being done by Orbis at large to put a stop to us.  Rather they are only complaining to Sheepy to do their dirty work.

 

Politics and war indeed.

 

Plenty is being done to put a stop to us, it's just not in the way that we would have hoped...

 

Politics and Baw indeed.

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't you one of those die-hard perks people? Maybe you don't realize that this is more or less the same thing, but actually less complex than 50 different tiered options? The point is specialization, and strategy, and this update adds more of both to the game in a way that isn't hard to understand. Aiming for "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master" here, which is a good goal imo.

This wasn't really what I had in mind when thinking of perks, but I suppose that's what they'll be.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironic as it sounds this balance thing is around about 20 players. (its less than 1% of in-game population.) lets say only 9 ever go to war, Incredibly safely they can attack 21 players in a week.If they are a bit aggressive and coordinating with others(1 player attacking 1) 63 players. In actuality these 9 players(  1 player attacking 3) fight about 189 people a week (which is about 10% of the game population, which is a lot seeing as how 50% don`t make it past day 1.) Its coming down to a few players having a VERY large impact in the game and creating a very political stalemate, on top of this. 

 

Sadly.. I think the issues aren't majorly in score, I have to say a few battles are very impactful, these 9 players show it by offering peace after attacking to attack more nations. ( a big reason they have such a large impact as well.). Even with them never beigeing a nation they still make a very large profit since a majority of raiding income is before then. (I`d rather see a bit of an update here where raiding isn`t from the first battle but the last). 

 

Now if these 9 nations stop fighting.. I hate to say it, there would be almost no war. The game would be very very boring and duller (honestly outside of a raid everyone is a peaceful circle.) This is partially cause of how expensive war and the fact there is no incentive. You have treasures in the game but they are not impactful.

 

Color spheres are depicted as this economic cooperation but they aren`t really anything. It'd be pretty fancy and cool and add some economic planing to the game if your sphere was the only trades you saw in the global marketplace. 

 

The beta is very aggressive and very quick and everyone is very small so war is very common. Balancing this I`m fearful for a very slow game with almost no war in the real server. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said this in another post but I would like to reiterate it here - 

 

Make War policies hidden and only view-able through a successful spy operation (of any kind).

This will add to an uncertainty to the war mechanics and every nation or alliance going to war needs to go with a plan A, B and C.

This will also help counter the first strike advantage in some of the cases.

It will strengthen the requirement of spy ops and will in general amount to who can bluff whom better.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This probably does make 90% of the game happier at the expense of the 10%. I just wish the 90% could adapt instead of asking for the game to change. Everybody has the same opportunities to use the exact same strategies but for some reason everybody is sitting at 2k infra complaining that 800 infra is too powerful. Do you guys really need a game mechanics change to stop a tiny, friendless band of pirates that you vastly outnumber? Why don't you try actually doing something in the game other than logging in once a day to sell resources?

 

I figure I might come out slightly ahead personally in my raiding, since I raid inactives at the extremely low score level and this will bring bigger nations into my range. But this whole affair makes me sad.

 

Sheepy, if you're changing the score calculations I'd like an option to delete cities please, when I bought my cities I never expected them to be worth 50 score.

Haha, I've fought Arrgh before. And I can tell you there's two alliances I don't want to fight: Arrgh and SK. Cuz they can both make you regret it.

 

If there were a solution that could have been found in warfare, it would have been done. Only thing is war is 24/7/365 for Arrgh. The rest of Orbis doesn't play like that. A one off war would accomplish nothing, less than nothing - negative effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the general mensa consensus is that we don't like the war policies. They come across as being more numerical number tweaking rather than something genuinely new. A little complexity is good, lots of mutually overlapping bonuses just make the game confusing and limit strategy (in favour of tactics).

 

Nevertheless the trend is for Sheepy to thank anyone who agrees with him, and call anyone who disagrees with him names, so I expect that war policies will become a feature regardless of feedback, and I guess we will plan to counter them.

  • Upvote 5

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good work Sheepy, ignore the naysayers they are arguing based on their in-game interests and not the interests of the game itself. As they say, if you aren't taking flak you aren't over the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheepy, you are in serious danger of destroying your game and therefore your livelihood.  Let me explain why with maths (a universal truth) rather than the fallacies that are regularly passed off as fact by the opposing pixel hugging / high infra side of things.  I expect most people will entirely ignore this as usual because it doesn't suit their argument and they can't deny the facts.  Instead we have Sheepy and a bunch of people with vested interests in the CDG deciding things without doing the basic maths.

 

Let me use my nation as an example, as I am one of very few people who have the type of build that everyone is complaining about.

 

3s6iddP.png

 

SITUATION WITH EXISTING SCORE FORMULA

 

UTtTVtq.png

 

As you can see, it is curently easy to have nations with a good income that can easily beat us.

 

SITUATION WITH PROPOSED SCORE FORMULA

 

uxWhWaE.png

 

As you can see here, it's incredibly easy to have your cake and eat it.  The big, rich nations will dominate the game with ease and will always remain big and rich (unless they are incredibly stupid).  Inflation will spiral out of control as infra hoarding is easy, profitable and doesn't have major downsides.  Sheepy won't be able to sell many credits because even if he makes them worth $10m each, the smaller players can be held down forever by the larger players.

 

You think Arrgh are a problem?  Wait until you set this easy mode for the larger players and bigger alliances.

 

This is another change that absolutely hurts newer players who can be declared on by people with vastly more resources.  They will also join the game and quickly realise that they never have an opportunity to be a big player in the game while the rich get richer and the poor and new are downtrodden repeatedly.  That will destroy new player retention.

 

Reconsider this Sheepy.  This could ruin your game entirely and not just for Arrgh by any means.  Maybe you should have more people on the CDG who are happy to disagree with you and produce detailed analysis based on maths rather than fallacies.

Edited by Dan77
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good work Sheepy, ignore the naysayers they are arguing based on their in-game interests and not the interests of the game itself. As they say, if you aren't taking flak you aren't over the target.

As a highly organised, highly militarised alliance, any increase in game complexity will benefit Mensa, as we will adapt and react faster than the blob alliances. That doesn't mean we naturally support that sort of things. I think you have brown on your nose.

  • Upvote 3

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a highly organised, highly militarised alliance, any increase in game complexity will benefit Mensa, as we will adapt and react faster than the blob alliances.

Lol? Being organized helps anybody doing anything, regardless of what they're doing. This goes for any multiplayer game that has ever existed. You're clutching at straws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just skimmed the thread so I might have missed it somewhere, but have you thought about lowering overall infra damage for an increased improvement destruction chance? Last war, I lost at least 12 million in infra in the first round, but less than a million in improvements.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arrgh: You're going to ruin the game, we'll have to fight people who are possibly strong than us.

Rest of the game:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:

 

Com'on guys, you're the self proclaimed biggest badass in the game. Fighting people with similar strength levels shouldn't be hard for you.

  • Upvote 2

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main point Dan is missing is that while he can definitely be countered, he can also abuse the fact that he's relatively low scored, meaning he can raid people that are a lot weaker than him and get funded that way. 

How exactly do you defeat Dan in the long run? Sure, you beat his millitary, except he can always keep fighting people who are weak & continue even after being beaten down. Especially if the person doesn't go for the minimum required amount of infrastructure but tries to run an ideal city. This is unfair towards both players since he not only cannot be beaten by the high end spectrum, but he also ruins it for the low-end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main point Dan is missing is that while he can definitely be countered, he can also abuse the fact that he's relatively low scored, meaning he can raid people that are a lot weaker than him and get funded that way. 

How exactly do you defeat Dan in the long run? Sure, you beat his millitary, except he can always keep fighting people who are weak & continue even after being beaten down. Especially if the person doesn't go for the minimum required amount of infrastructure but tries to run an ideal city. This is unfair towards both players since he not only cannot be beaten by the high end spectrum, but he also ruins it for the low-end.

 

Except I don't.  Rarely is it in my interests to attack players with a lower score than myself.  They just don't have the money and aren't a threat to us.  It's often my job to take out the biggest threats in an opposing alliance.  I make far more money updeclaring than I would raiding in the bottom of my range.  I've also explained on numerous occasions that they can have a good amount of infrastructure and still attack me.  They can even have more military than me and still attack me.  I wish people would stop ignoring irrefutable facts.

 

Why do you guys think we don't attack Mensa?  Could it be because their infra levels and builds are sensible rather than greedy?

 

I can most certainly be beaten and it isn't even difficult to do.  I'd get fed up of replacing 16,000 tanks quite quickly (at ~$50m a time).  I don't know how much you guys think we make from raiding while running a big negative income.

 

This isn't even about Arrgh though.  It's about handing the game over to rich players and screwing everybody else.  So many of you guys are supporting the change because it hurts Arrgh who are a current pain for you or you just don't like us.  Think past the immediate situation and about the consequences of these changes and the fact that the richest nations in the game will be able to hit p much anybody they like and dominate the game forever.  Think about how the game is for new players who's military is capped due to population while high infra guys can just take all their shit repeatedly.

 

Maybe I should ask Arrgh to all reroll and just build 1 maxed military city at 1000 infra and kill every single new player who joins just to make the point.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main point Dan is missing is that while he can definitely be countered, he can also abuse the fact that he's relatively low scored, meaning he can raid people that are a lot weaker than him and get funded that way. 

How exactly do you defeat Dan in the long run? Sure, you beat his millitary, except he can always keep fighting people who are weak & continue even after being beaten down. Especially if the person doesn't go for the minimum required amount of infrastructure but tries to run an ideal city. This is unfair towards both players since he not only cannot be beaten by the high end spectrum, but he also ruins it for the low-end.

90% in my range (pretty much the same range as Dan) would be easy targets. Not because I have more cities, but simply because they are unarmed.  They are unarmed becsuae they want to maximise their profits.  That is their choice.  Plenty in my range that can field an equal and larger army then me.  Just as plenty that I am larger then.  Does Sheepy envision a game full of high infra and no armies?  Because that is what he is encouraging.

  • Upvote 4

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quality feedback guys, thanks for testing things out and contributing to the development of the game :)

 

Did you ever consider for once that this isn't about you? The overall playerbase is far more important than a handful of players flying a pirate flag. And you'd be surprised how nice that +40% loot is, in my tests that makes for a huge increase in plunder when you factor in winning wars (the increased alliance bank loot is quite significant.)

 

Damn, you sassy today Sheepy! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly i don't think it matters how sheepy goes about fixing this. There will always be a problem. Any change will just shift the power in Orbis. Now its low level raiders, next will be complete top tier superiority. ( for you CNers, you should know how that works)

 

 

Ill give my last opinion... The problem imo is, during this silly thing we call the peace cycle. Most people completely decom everything that has to do with military. They think there alliances and treaties will always be there to protect them. Arrgh has pretty much shown in the last few months that the treaty web basically means nothing during the peace cycle and people shouldn't rely on it during the peace cycle. Goes to show when most alliances sign treaties, they are only thinking of themselves and there interest. Basically all im saying is the treaty web is a lie.

 

With that said, what would you expect from an raiding alliance with no treaty partners or care for the treaty web, plus with members that has completely revolved their nations around war?  

And there are ways that exist to beat us. You may not know it, but we do. Ill share somthing here.....

 

When arrgh kept raiding NAC, we knew one day Rose and VE will hit us. It was just a matter of time. Then that time came and we saw rose/ve's war boner popping up. Allot of us and allot of our gov was like "oh shit, our time may have come" Cuz we knew VE and Rose had the capability to wipe us. Then later that night, we got drunken orders to preempt VE/Rose. By the next morning, our very coordinated members manage to hit anyone who was a threat to us. Then the rest of us just basically raided.

 

 

So what does this say? We knew we were about to be rolled, but we used our coordination and our military we always have on hand to prevent that. We strike before there members got to powerful. We know how war works. We know the dos and donts. We know who and not to strike and when to strike.

 

Then why is this such a problem? Only thing arrgh is taking advantage of are surprise attacks and the false reality of the treaty web. We all know the game war mechanics completely favors the aggressor. No doubt there. Its also very easy to wipe out an entire military in a single hour. --- that may need to be nerfed. i do agree there.  But having zero military and relying on basically noone for protection. thats a peoples issue. Not a game mechanics issue. the current mechanics allows beat down nations continue fighting. It just seems like an issue now because arrgh is taking advantage of the peace cycle.

 

Thats all i got to say pretty much.  

 

tl;dr: treaty web is a lie, you guys make it easy for us, everyone in arrgh knows we can be rolled so why dont you?, our military superiority comes from coordination, experience and always having a standby military, the current game mechanics allows beaten down nations to continue fighting but during the peace cycle it the best way to raid.    

 

 

Edit: For you people who say this isnt about arrgh, go ahead and think that. Reality is arrgh is the only one highlighting this so called problem because of our excessive raiding lately. So this whole thing is basically about Arrgh.  

Edited by Glorton
  • Upvote 5
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.