Seeking Testers - War Policies + Score Formula Change

[GentlemenJack]

We need another reset

[Glorton]

We need another reset

 

maybe not a complete resest, but if people are serious about fixing the the war system. Its needs to be reset and re-thinked. no matter how you go about fixing it. you will never fix it. only make things worse.  

[Fox Fire]

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.

This applies to anyone under any war system. You can always beat a nation down to the point that they can roll even smaller nations. Unless they turtle, they can always keep fighting.

In (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) we call this "part of the game". We don't whine about it being a problem.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

This applies to anyone under any war system. You can always beat a nation down to the point that they can roll even smaller nations. Unless they turtle, they can always keep fighting.

In (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) we call this "part of the game". We don't whine about it being a problem.

Really? The reason people don't "whine" about anything in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is because nothing ever changes, the dev has abandoned the game. At least Sheepy is actually 1) active, and 2) in touch with the players and actually communicates with us, and 3) is constantly tweaking and updating the game with more stuff.

 

Games get patched, they change. It's almost like you want PW to remain static.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov

[Prefontaine]

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

 

So everyone has to play the low infra game and should only play the way you want to. Got'cha. Wasn't one of Arrgh's biggest arguments hypocritical to that statement? 

 

Games get patched, they change. It's almost like you want PW to remain static.

 

Only when the broken mechanics favor them. 

 

This whole thread boils down to Arrgh being children about the fact that their broken mechanic is getting changed and they might actually have to fight someone with equal military. I knew you were gonna be upset about the change but I didn't quite expect straight childish level behavior.

[Fox Fire]

Really? The reason people don't "whine" about anything in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is because nothing ever changes, the dev has abandoned the game. At least Sheepy is actually 1) active, and 2) in touch with the players and actually communicates with us, and 3) is constantly tweaking and updating the game with more stuff.

 

Games get patched, they change. It's almost like you want PW to remain static.

Yeah, that's Sheepys problem. The fact that he won't let anything actually play and just keeps changing everything the moment a forum loud mouth posts about it. CNs admin doesn't do this, not because he's lazy, not because he's abandoned the game, but because he's consistent. You don't have to have no life to admin a game. 

 

I repeat: 

 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

[Wayne]

This whole thread boils down to Arrgh being children about the fact that their broken mechanic is getting changed and they might actually have to fight someone with equal military. I knew you were gonna be upset about the change but I didn't quite expect straight childish level behavior.

 

We can already fight people that have equal or higher numbers then us.  So that arguement is null and void.  Give it six months and we'll be discussing changing the mechanics again.

[Spite]

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.

 

What are you talking about fool? I was accused of defending the current system, on the grounds that changes would negatively effect me. I explained that due to the way we work, the changes would not negatively affect us and could even benefit us due to our ability to adapt quickly and utilise game mechanics effectively. This means that my points are free from self-interest, and should be considered in their own right.

Besides, you're GPA.

[Prefontaine]

We can already fight people that have equal or higher numbers then us.  So that arguement is null and void.  Give it six months and we'll be discussing changing the mechanics again.

 

Sure, you can up declare on them, but they cannot down declare upon you. So you can pick and choose who to hit one by one. Please. You and I both know better.

[Fox Fire]

We can already fight people that have equal or higher numbers then us.  So that arguement is null and void.  Give it six months and we'll be discussing changing the mechanics again.

Quoted for emphasis.

[Valakias]

 

 

I just recently had the pleasure to deal with a shit 900 infra cities raider with MORE military than me, and less score. 

 

I welcome this change, the system is broken, it has to be fixed, if the peoples in Aargh can't recognize how wrong it is, and how much this change is needed, than they really don't care about the game and the community, and that's the worst kind of player you can be.

[Dan77]

Sure, you can up declare on them, but they cannot down declare upon you. So you can pick and choose who to hit one by one. Please. You and I both know better.

 

People can declare on us.  I gave you figures to prove it.  Ignoring them doesn't stop them being correct.

[Wayne]

Sure, you can up declare on them, but they cannot down declare upon you. So you can pick and choose who to hit one by one. Please. You and I both know better.

 

 

Fully built, the majority of Mensa could declare on me.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Quoted for emphasis.

So? Sixth months is a long time, new tactics/strategies emerge and the dev responds if something is too exploitative, it's how game development works.

[Memph]

Maybe the numbers need to be tweaked a little. I'm not sure it's appropriate to require nations to limit themselves to 1500 infra per city to take on Arrgh's 13-14 city nations. Maybe it would be more appropriate if they could get in range with 1800 infra/city or even 2000 infra/city.

 

But even if you did that, it doesn't mean Arrgh won't be able to continue raiding. There are definitely alliances out there that could stand up to Arrgh if they built more military and coordinated properly. I don't expect NPO to get raided for example because they have a solid military and large number of nations around Arrgh's level. Even #10-20 ranked alliances could do things to deter Arrgh from raiding. Hide your money in the bank so Arrgh can't loot it, let them beige you, take out your funds from the bank, rebuild in beige and hit back. Even if you don't ultimately win it'll make it highly unprofitable for Arrgh and they'll probably stick to easier targets in the future.

 

Arrgh's top nation probably have -$1m income. If they're only able to steal a few mil on the initial attacks at a cost of thousands of tanks, they'll leave you alone. Unless maybe you're one of a couple of nations in your alliance with a decent military and they need to take you down to raid the rest of the soft targets.

 

If Arrgh is able to take on smaller 2nd page alliances, that doesn't mean the game is broken, after all, Arrgh is a 1st page alliance. It just means those smaller alliances need to find allies that are willing to help them out. For the bigger alliances, Arrgh has meant they've had to re-evaluate how much profit they make during peace-time... I don't necessarily see that as a problem, the big alliances should still be able to defend against Arrgh while making a positive income. It's just that they want to have high incomes and grow fast so they have smaller militaries. I don't think that making it so that nations with more typical (ex 1800) infra levels per city can hit Arrgh nations with equal # of cities is going to change the fact that some alliances just don't want to deal with Arrgh militarily.

 

So now alliances that don't go to war as much (ex GPA, DEIC, Sparta, Pantheon) might not be able to outpace the growth of alliances that war more to the same extent. Either because they need to have a military, or because they have to pay protection money to Arrgh, or because they have to accept that getting raided every now and then is just the cost of doing business for alliances with weak militaries and weak allies.

 

Also, for the alliances that do maintain large militaries, that creates an incentive to start more alliance wars. Now that they're paying all that military upkeep, might as well use your army for something... which IMO is a good part of the reason why the 168 day war happened.

[Caillou]

Sheepy4lyfe

[japan77]

Hey, just a suggestion, as this thread has already begun to spiral, and doesn't seem to be headed anywhere.

 

Rather than score, since Aargh! claims they want to fight people with similar military capacity, we base war range on military capacity, which is calculated from the number of military improvements you currently have(which can be exploited, but so can any other system), and throw infra out the window in regards to war.

 

This is purely hypothetical atm, and I haven't really looked at the numbers yet.

[Fox Fire]

Hey, just a suggestion, as this thread has already begun to spiral, and doesn't seem to be headed anywhere.

 

Rather than score, since Aargh! claims they want to fight people with similar military capacity, we base war range on military capacity, which is calculated from the number of military improvements you currently have(which can be exploited, but so can any other system), and throw infra out the window in regards to war.

 

This is purely hypothetical atm, and I haven't really looked at the numbers yet.

Because then I could just decom all military and nobody could declare on me.

[japan77]

Because then I could just decom all military and nobody could declare on me.

I think you meant military improvements(As that was what I was talking about, and yes I realize that's the massive exploit here, but it would allow people who want to play GPA style to play GPA style, and others to play other styles, and I also know that there is another exploit in that people could decom buildings, declare war, and then recom them, but that is currently an available exploit(to a degree) anyway).

[Beatrix]

The arguments presented by Dan & Wayne are a lot more convincing. 

I still think the numbers require a little bit of tinkering, perhaps putting a little extra dominance on the millitary score compared to infrastructure/cities/projects etc. That way, someone with a low amount of infrastructure but a lot of millitary is just ever so slightly more in range of the people able to deflect him, as well as a little out of range of people that are significantly lower.

[Tywin Lannister]

I just recently had the pleasure to deal with a shit 900 infra cities raider with MORE military than me, and less score.

 

I welcome this change, the system is broken, it has to be fixed, if the peoples in Aargh can't recognize how wrong it is, and how much this change is needed, than they really don't care about the game and the community, and that's the worst kind of player you can be.

Aww, you mean me. <3

 

You know it's not all fun and games. I run a $1.5m negative revenue infra build as opposed to your money making one. Plus you along with another guy did manage to beat me. It was a little harder maybe yes but that's the military advantage I gained from running a money losing build and lost the economic advantage of making any money everyday.

 

But I understand Arrgh's ultra aggressive mode left Sheepy little choice, people were unwilling to militarily handle Arrgh(despite it being completely possible) and what better way than going the old if you can't win easily, change the playing field approach.

 

Tbh the biggest evidence of this can be seen in the for the most part specific targeting of a certain sphere by Arrgh which lacked the military expertise or willingness. Compare standing militaries of different spheres and you will understand. If the mechanics were actually really terrible as the pixel huggers with zero military make it out to be, tS or Mensa or one of their allies would've had been mass raided already. Keep in mind Arrgh was involved in war with this sphere so there's no special love for the tS side either.

 

Sent from my mobile so apologies for any mistakes.

[Beatrix]

I think you meant military improvements(As that was what I was talking about, and yes I realize that's the massive exploit here, but it would allow people who want to play GPA style to play GPA style, and others to play other styles, and I also know that there is another exploit in that people could decom buildings, declare war, and then recom them, but that is currently an available exploit(to a degree) anyway).

 

Are you trying to make people immune to war? That's a terrible idea.

[japan77]

Are you trying to make people immune to war? That's a terrible idea.

Sort of, it'll allow people who don't want to fight to not fight, and those that do want to be able to(I understand it'll be basically creating two games from one, but I think it solves alot the issues mentioned above).

[Fox Fire]

Sort of, it'll allow people who don't want to fight to not fight, and those that do want to be able to(I understand it'll be basically creating two games from one, but I think it solves alot the issues mentioned above).

All opinions of this aside.....

I'm almost 100% sure that Sheepy would reject this idea, considering he's always been opposed to any kind of peace mode. 

[Memph]

Sort of, it'll allow people who don't want to fight to not fight, and those that do want to be able to(I understand it'll be basically creating two games from one, but I think it solves alot the issues mentioned above).

Only if the pure econ nations have to reset their nations if they ever change their mind and decide to get a military.