Seeking Testers - War Policies + Score Formula Change

[japan77]

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. 

 

okay, I'm fairly new here, and actually had no idea about this.

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

why?(I don't entirely agree or disagree with this, and I would like to no your reasoning)

 

Edit: we could require econ nations to be on gray(no bonus) that would give incentives to be militarized.

Edited March 20, 2016 by japan77

[Wayne]

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. 

 

Can't be that against it, seeing as he encourages people to have 0 armies.

[Kastor]

5:04 PM <Kazy> https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/LHBqRSjO/IMG_2660.PNG

 

In news of testing, if you have Pirate enabled, it says it's giving you the extra 40% but I don't receive it.

[Rozalia]

Sheepy you got all these high energy killers here to listen to and you choose to listen to your group of low energy dishonest people. Sad!

 

So what I want to know is what changes for the likes of GPA/Rose's boys at the top who even when on the losing end of a war are virtually untouchable. You going to do anything about those untouchables? Or are some people worth hitting more with (attempted) nullifying changes than others?

[LordRahl2]

Sheepy would it help if I broke down exactly how to beat (and keep beaten) a raiding alliance group using current mechanics?

[George Clooney]

Wouldn't it be cool if people didn't treat this part of the forums as an extension of IC politics? 

 

I'll pledge to give things on Test a try and give honest feedback, not feedback slanted to favor my alliance or any other, whatever their raiding policy.

[Samdoo]

Sheepy you got all these high energy killers here to listen to and you choose to listen to your group of low energy dishonest people. Sad!

 

So what I want to know is what changes for the likes of GPA/Rose's boys at the top who even when on the losing end of a war are virtually untouchable. You going to do anything about those untouchables? Or are some people worth hitting more with (attempted) nullifying changes than others?

 

We all know the game can`t be in perfect balance.. If you want a perfect game, go play some keno and have fun with purely luck based.

 

Right now the balance is shifting the gameplay and style, to where you build up your nation then get it destroyed and wreck havoc on lower nations, These lower nations in turn struggle to play the game. This style of nation is a very small number but impacts are very large portion of the community (roughly 5% a week, and typically in a negative manner). 

 

Untouchable nations are non-interactive in wars, and only effect each other. They can hand other people money or maybe effect the global economy. The nations don`t really negatively effect other nations (getting 10 mill from one of these nations doesn`t effect things in a negative way, to the nation interacting.) 

 

Moving an issue to effect less players does make things better. As well raiders, can still do what they are currently doing and punish people not having a military and relying heavily on treaties. I`ve become a fan of nations like fasolt and I`m excited to see what he will do with his larger raiding range. 

 

Issues may arise in the lower tier with raiding, if a larger nation pays a smaller nation up to raid everyone else but this score range is quite small and is already its own balance nightmare. 

[japan77]

Another suggestion that I thought of, mostly because the former one got shot down, and I do want a fix to this problem because it keeps spiraling, and it seems few people like any options offered by Sheepy or the status quo or for that matter anyone offered by the community.

A minimum standing army to receive the economic bonus of staying on color, based on your overall population.

[Hereno]

We all know the game can`t be in perfect balance.. If you want a perfect game, go play some keno and have fun with purely luck based.

 

Right now the balance is shifting the gameplay and style, to where you build up your nation then get it destroyed and wreck havoc on lower nations, These lower nations in turn struggle to play the game. This style of nation is a very small number but impacts are very large portion of the community (roughly 5% a week, and typically in a negative manner). 

 

Untouchable nations are non-interactive in wars, and only effect each other. They can hand other people money or maybe effect the global economy. The nations don`t really negatively effect other nations (getting 10 mill from one of these nations doesn`t effect things in a negative way, to the nation interacting.) 

 

Moving an issue to effect less players does make things better. As well raiders, can still do what they are currently doing and punish people not having a military and relying heavily on treaties. I`ve become a fan of nations like fasolt and I`m excited to see what he will do with his larger raiding range. 

 

Issues may arise in the lower tier with raiding, if a larger nation pays a smaller nation up to raid everyone else but this score range is quite small and is already its own balance nightmare.

on what planet does a nation being untouchable and able to dump tons of money on someone not a bad thing

 

these are literally the people who are arguing in favor of this

[Ogaden]

So when this doesn't solve the arrgh problem, what's next?

[LordRahl2]

So when this doesn't solve the arrgh problem, what's next?

It's not a "problem"?

[Stormrideron]

This thread reeks of inability to solve the problem. (It won't be that long before we all run into this same problem again)

 

This new score change is going to throw the balance of game way off the chart. So I am going to propose a very simple solution. 

 

Make Down-Declare = 30%

Make Up-Declare = 70%

 

instead of 75%/25% 

 

This change will help close the gap between economic build and military build nations. Is that so hard to understand? Tweaking the declare range might takes a bit of tweaking, but it is simple solution and doesn't adds complication to the game. 

Edited March 21, 2016 by Stormrideron

[Samdoo]

on what planet does a nation being untouchable and able to dump tons of money on someone not a bad thing

 

The one we currently have?? or we could just remove score ranges.... so they could attack everyone, I`m sure that would work great. 

[Alex]

... Sheepy, I thought you said you weren't implementing the score change..,? You even said it in that bloody podcast.

 

I don't recall that - the score change is what fixes the balancing issue. The War Policies add various tactics to the game to preserve multiple play styles.

 

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.

 

Up your nose with a rubber hose

 

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: 

 

 

How many times have you sent me a big long PM about how you can't bear to play the game anymore, and that you're quitting and I'm a horrible admin, the game sucks, whatever?

 

And yet, here you are...

 

5:04 PM <Kazy> https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/LHBqRSjO/IMG_2660.PNG

 

In news of testing, if you have Pirate enabled, it says it's giving you the extra 40% but I don't receive it.

 

You did get 40% more (not an extra 40%.) I know this certainly, because the hard cap on how much you can loot from an alliance bank is 33%. You looted 49.08% (an obscene amount, imo) which, if we divide by 140% shows that you would have otherwise looted only ~29%. So it's definitely working, and the vast amount of loot you took is proof.

 

So when this doesn't solve the arrgh problem, what's next?

 

Arrgh isn't a problem - you get this impression that I hate you or something. I love that the game isn't just sitting around doing nothing for months until a big war breaks out, Arrgh and other raiders are driving activity and making the game better. The problem is currently that you've got too much of an advantage due to an unintended playstyle (lots of cities with more improvements than the infrastructure can support) and these features being tested are about correcting that imbalance whilst maintaining your playstyle of choice as a viable option.

 

This thread reeks of inability to solve the problem. (It won't be that long before we all run into this same problem again)

 

This new score change is going to throw the balance of game way off the chart. So I am going to propose a very simple solution. 

 

Make Down-Declare = 30%

Make Up-Declare = 70%

 

instead of 75%/25% 

 

This change will help close the gap between economic build and military build nations. Is that so hard to understand? Tweaking the declare range might takes a bit of tweaking, but it is simple solution and doesn't adds complication to the game. 

 

That might make things a little better, but part of the intention behind the up/down declare ranges is that old, big nations can be "recycled" and newer nations can take their place in time. Yes, that's happening now, but as I pointed out above I believe the game is imbalanced, etc. and working to correct that while preserving this ideal and others will make the game better for all.

[LordRahl2]

Thanks for replying to me sheepy. I know that I ask hard questions. . .

[Dan77]

Thanks for replying to me sheepy. I know that I ask hard questions. . .

I know the feeling. I go to the trouble of breaking it down with easy to understand numbers and it just gets ignored.

 

There's little point testing when the decision has already been made. This score change will cause serious problems for the game. I can find better things to do with my time but it's a shame to see it happen. I'll thought out doesn't even come close to describing this one.

[SoS]

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.

We beat the dog shit out of Arrgh...militarily. Didn't do any good.

[Kurdanak]

Damn, you sassy today Sheepy!

Sheepy has always been the sassmaster.

 

It'll be fun to see how the score changes affect the Alliance Power Rankings and such!

Edited March 21, 2016 by Kurdanak

[Kastor]

Sheepy, those guys weren't in an alliance so there was no alliance bank to loot from.

[Shadowstar1922]

The war policies are completely unnecessary. The more factors you add to an equation, the more difficult it becomes to predict. Why are you adding things when what is already there is still broken? 

wow i have never seen someone complain about the game getting more difficult as hard as this

 

"waaaah the game is getting harder" 

 

"waaaah you made war more complex"

 

"waaaaah"

 

shut up

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Probably one of the first people who actually complains about features being added to a game.

[Fox Fire]

How many times have you sent me a big long PM about how you can't bear to play the game anymore, and that you're quitting and I'm a horrible admin, the game sucks, whatever?

 

And yet, here you are...

 

And yet I'm not exactly playing. Waiting for you to make something stick. 

EDIT: And like twice I think. 

 

wow i have never seen someone complain about the game getting more difficult as hard as this

 

"waaaah the game is getting harder" 

 

"waaaah you made war more complex"

 

"waaaaah"

 

shut up

That' not what I said at all. War policies are just some bonus you can apply to your nation and change whenever you want. They aren't complex, they're kinda stupid. My point is you don't have to add things for no reason. 

Edited March 21, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Andrezj Kolarov]

That' not what I said at all. War policies are just some bonus you can apply to your nation and change whenever you want. They aren't complex, they're kinda stupid. My point is you don't have to add things for no reason. 

Nothing is perfect. I personally think it's exciting to see new things added to the game.

[Stormrideron]

I want to proof Sheepy that game mechanics is not broken at all. I attacked S.O.S recently because he was chanting so much shit on this forum. At that time he had no military at all, consider it a good lesson for him since he does deserved it.

 

So today, I received a message from him, and to my surprise...

 

From: SoS Date: 03/21/2016 Monday 1:40 pm Report Content

 

You dealt me a hell of a lot more than $25 million in damages, because you forced me to militarize. I intend to make it up in raids.

Please read this carefully and do take a note the word militarize. He actively took this action to prevent me from looting him and that follows with this message.

 

From: SoS Date: 03/21/2016 Monday 1:14 pm Report Content

 

Haha, I kinda need to do what I can to prevent you looting the bank. Just keep up with the air strikes

My reaction:

 

 

What is this? A defender actually taking action to stop me? Well, Sheepy, you see 90% of these whiners on the forums either have no military or a very tiny military. They got attacked because they don't have a large standing military to protect them. Totally not our fault, it is their choice to go that path. S.O.S actually showed that his actions defies the whiners perspective of current game mechanics. Current game mechanics is working as intended and it is running healthy and fine. Your score change will not help because it will further encourage the rich nation to continue to expand their infra and stay well protected, making it even harder to achieve collaborative teamwork.

 

I hope you will reconsider this change because S.O.S shows that game mechanics is fine, as proven in-game message and his actions. You also wanted to have less in-game money so more people will purchase credits and I am doing you a great service by destroying $25 million a day. You should be thanking us for it.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Stormrideron

[Samdoo]

First I`d like to say thank you to Grealind, He made a score change calculator when the initial proposal was suggested, its on the top of page 5 on that thread. 

 

The change is to discourage a nation from purposely dropping their score. It makes it so it's more difficult to raid down and less difficult to raid up (I thought raiders preferred hitting larger nations, not smaller ones anyway.) (this would stop nations like perf from doing what he did to raiders.) 

 

I`ll start with your hit on S.O.S which wouldn't have happened with the score change, you would be from 1325 to 2067( new range 1,550.25 - 3,617.25) S.O.S would have moved from 1250 to 1135. He is not untouchable though, now lets say a raider(full military) with 7 cities declares down (his score would be 1320) on this 13 city no military pixel hugger.  This pixel hugger is pissed, he just got raided by a 7 city nation and couldn't fight back.  (assuming there'd be some coordination to hit a few people that could counter effectively, Cause raiders are great at raiding cause of their coordination) 

 

This is where things get really exciting the pixel hugger decides to counter back on his raider. (This never happens anyway, So I'm stretching a bit). He builds 7 cities worth of full mill cause that wouldn't raise his score above the raider at full military. He's wrong the pixel hugger score would increased to 1,812.75(new war range 1,359.56 - 3,172.31). 

 

Wow look at this.. the guy is back in your range you are more prepared than him and he can't attack who he thought he could but you can attack him now. This change does effect who can attack 0 mill nations but they aren't untouchable. 

 

Now lets talk about something really crazy, lets say the 15th ranked nation doesn't have a standing mill with his 15 cities his score would change from 2675 to 1975. Wow that would be a down declare for you. 

 

Thats right this change is very punishing for no military players, as a player with full military and quite small can still raid them and not be punished by the nation they raided. Your strategy does't work  but it doesn't mean your play style is gone. This doesn't account for every military in between, This is why we things are being tested on the test server. NON MILITARY PLAYERS AREN'T BEING REWARDED. Yes, you're mechanic is being effected, again the change is only realistically effecting about less than 1% of the player base, You just happen to fall with-in it. 

 

I got sheepy to repeat what he said earlier today (ignore the jabber of german) http://prntscr.com/aiceki   He ignores complaints from nations that complain about being raided when they have no military. These 90% of whiners you are talking about aren't being listened to. The full military or quite nearly full military (hard to prove nearly full military cause of the anti-tank thought process), getting hit first by one nation, are the ones complaining. These battles are hard to find proof of cause they do happen rarely since the full military build is sadly still rare.  You have a point that 0 mill sucks, I won't argue that, you have pushed the culture away from that slowly, This change would speed up per-example I displayed. 

 

Glad I could help clarify your mis-conceptions and get you excited about helping players punish players without military (or you could just re-start your nation for more fun) 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Samdoo