Jump to content

Seeking Testers - War Policies + Score Formula Change


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

Per week, actually. There's stats on the homepage, currently:

 

35,622 nations have been simulated to date! 4,552 nations exist now, 1,962 nations have been active in the last week, and 554 nations have been active today. 477 new nations have been created this week, and 20 nations have been created today.

 

It fluctuates frequently, with peaks around 2100 nations in the last week and lows of around 1850 or so.

 

 

How did the number of created nations change? Or has it been relatively the same? 2k players is a not a bad number, but we could use more :v

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

politics that actually matter like what? what should politics be over if not the game? who dislikes who in the private skype calls that 95% of the people here won't ever even know exist because they didn't play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) 10 years ago?

 

some of these dumbass sycophants would probably kill their own grandmothers IRL if it meant staying on top in a browser game

 

I can't fix people, I can only try to play what amounts to a really sophisticated version of Diplomacy Online (this ain't Skyrim people) and hope that others are down with that.  If they aren't and they become obnoxious enough, I'll go find something else to do and they can choke on the trophy they won for killing a game.

 

I've heard enough stories about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) to know that the player community is its own worst enemy, and the admin there lost control of his game years ago through neglect and trusting the wrong people.  The fact that he hasn't just shut it down is more a testament to the cynical exploitation of people who shell out $30 a month (and more in some cases) than anything else.

 

A thousand or so?  You are overestimating the size and interest in this game!

 

Not really.  That's less than a quarter of the players now playing, and that number of growing.  Even if it is actually a bit less (and from the comments above, it's more), the fact is that if it comes down to a popularity contest as to whether or not the changes Sheepy has proposed actually get implemented, the 'yes' vote is far larger than the 'no' vote.  It's not even close. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

City score is now 4x a greater score-influencer than it used to be. Jesus what a terrible idea. I'll make a full write-up later tonight.

 

If the goal was to limit sniping lower players by large players, fine. But this change will create massive problems when it comes to alliance war. I reckon that the 2000+ infra players are the ones behind this change. Buffs their playstyle considerably.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

City score is now 4x a greater score-influencer than it used to be. Jesus what a terrible idea. I'll make a full write-up later tonight.

 

If the goal was to limit sniping lower players by large players, fine. But this change will create massive problems when it comes to alliance war. I reckon that the 2000+ infra players are the ones behind this change. Buffs their playstyle considerably.

You mean the people in the so called concept development group?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it really disturbing that people are trying to play politics on the test server. Or grow to a point it doesn't even matter to test war policies using the game's quadruple speed. I want to test Moneybags so SOMEONE hit me already! I'll even decom my military for you if you need that much help.

 

http://test.politicsandwar.com/nation/id=26923

Edited by Hooves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Declaring 2 wars with Blitz enabled on the test server only gave me a bonus MAP for the first war? Is this a bug or a feature?

Quoting myself to bump it past the politics.

 

Also, i beiged a member of a one man alliance and only got 5.7% of his bank. Is that a bug or a feature? Either way it's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.  That's less than a quarter of the players now playing, and that number of growing.  Even if it is actually a bit less (and from the comments above, it's more), the fact is that if it comes down to a popularity contest as to whether or not the changes Sheepy has proposed actually get implemented, the 'yes' vote is far larger than the 'no' vote.  It's not even close. 

 

Yes really, take Sheepys numbers as proof.  Out of 35000 nations, only 4500 are still currently 'active' (which I assume means they have not been deleted from the database yet).  1962 nations have logged in at least once in the last week, I'll assume the new nations are included in the 'logged in at least once in a week' category.  Which means from an 'active' player count of 4500 only 1485 returned to the game in a week.  Out of 1485 only 550 bothered to log in today.

 

I wouldn't call that a thriving game.  I would call it a game with serious retention issues.  And of course the 'Yes' vote is larger, the changes only truly effect a small portion of the active, forum dwelling, player base.

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

I find it really disturbing that people are trying to play politics on the test server. Or grow to a point it doesn't even matter to test war policies using the game's quadruple speed. I want to test Moneybags so SOMEONE hit me already! I'll even decom my military for you if you need that much help.

 

http://test.politicsandwar.com/nation/id=26923

ok

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I've brought up twice the issue of the "untouchables" at the top, why is this ignored? 

 

It's not an issue - war ranges still extend +75% and -25%, so smaller nations can gang up on larger nations but can't be picked off by the larger nations. Additionally, there's the +10 rank exception in war ranges, which only goes one way -- you can declare on anyone in the next ten ranks above you regardless of score discrepancies, but they can't declare war on you unless you're in their war range.

 

Quoting myself to bump it past the politics.

 

Also, i beiged a member of a one man alliance and only got 5.7% of his bank. Is that a bug or a feature? Either way it's a problem.

 

Blitzkrieg doesn't give you extra MAPs. Declaring war on someone else who is using Blitzkrieg does.

 

As for the 5.7% of the bank - you get between a range of 0.01% and (their score/total alliance score) capped at 33%. If you're pirate, you could theoretically get up to 46.2% of their bank (1.4 * .33)

This seems unrelated to these changes, as that's how it's always been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an issue - war ranges still extend +75% and -25%, so smaller nations can gang up on larger nations but can't be picked off by the larger nations. Additionally, there's the +10 rank exception in war ranges, which only goes one way -- you can declare on anyone in the next ten ranks above you regardless of score discrepancies, but they can't declare war on you unless you're in their war range.

 

 

Blitzkrieg doesn't give you extra MAPs. Declaring war on someone else who is using Blitzkrieg does.

 

As for the 5.7% of the bank - you get between a range of 0.01% and (their score/total alliance score) capped at 33%. If you're pirate, you could theoretically get up to 46.2% of their bank (1.4 * .33)

This seems unrelated to these changes, as that's how it's always been.

Then it's a bug, because i got 5.7% not 33%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheepy, do you have to resign up for this pw tester site or can you use your existing nation from this one onto the tester site.  Do you give out rewards for testing on the tester site

Edited by Ezio Auditore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Then it's a bug, because i got 5.7% not 33%.

 

 I didn't quite clarify, when I said range between 0.01% and 33%, I meant a random value in that range. You either got 5.7%, or some other value that was modified based on yours or their war policy (or both.)

Sheepy, do you have to resign up for this pw tester site or can you use your existing nation from this one onto the tester site.  Do you give out rewards for testing on the tester site

 

You need to sign up with a new account, and no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes really, take Sheepys numbers as proof.  Out of 35000 nations, only 4500 are still currently 'active' (which I assume means they have not been deleted from the database yet).  1962 nations have logged in at least once in the last week, I'll assume the new nations are included in the 'logged in at least once in a week' category.  Which means from an 'active' player count of 4500 only 1485 returned to the game in a week.  Out of 1485 only 550 bothered to log in today.

 

I wouldn't call that a thriving game.  I would call it a game with serious retention issues.  And of course the 'Yes' vote is larger, the changes only truly effect a small portion of the active, forum dwelling, player base.

 

Ok, then how about this.  I actually went out and rolled up a nation on the Test server, engaged in what I would consider a conservative raiding schedule (1 nation or so a day), and even with the changes that Sheepy listed in the OP, I'm making millions.  So assuming that the changes do make it into the Production server (and I see no reason why not), I think you'll be ok. 

 

With the understanding that there will always be people who try the game, don't like it/decide it takes too much time and leave due to no fault of anyone in particular, retention issues can be caused by a number of things, some in Sheepy's control, some not.  I'd say he's done an outstanding job so far addressing the things he can control.  In the realm of things outside his control and in the area of player issues, raiding the same people over and over certainly doesn't help player retention and if you are seriously concerned about player retention and the health of the game, you wouldn't engage in the practice.  The trade off is that there will be more people for everyone to raid, since the raid targets are less liable to rage quit. Something to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, then how about this.  I actually went out and rolled up a nation on the Test server, engaged in what I would consider a conservative raiding schedule (1 nation or so a day), and even with the changes that Sheepy listed in the OP, I'm making millions.  So assuming that the changes do make it into the Production server (and I see no reason why not), I think you'll be ok.

 

Yeah, it must be really challenging raiding 1 nation a day who isn't even playing on the server.  Clearly a good demonstration.

 

P sure that if you genuinely did think that the changes were good for raiders you'd be complaining about them rather than trying to bullshit people into believing what you're shovelling.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, then how about this.  I actually went out and rolled up a nation on the Test server, engaged in what I would consider a conservative raiding schedule (1 nation or so a day), and even with the changes that Sheepy listed in the OP, I'm making millions.  So assuming that the changes do make it into the Production server (and I see no reason why not), I think you'll be ok. 

 

With the understanding that there will always be people who try the game, don't like it/decide it takes too much time and leave due to no fault of anyone in particular, retention issues can be caused by a number of things, some in Sheepy's control, some not.  I'd say he's done an outstanding job so far addressing the things he can control.  In the realm of things outside his control and in the area of player issues, raiding the same people over and over certainly doesn't help player retention and if you are seriously concerned about player retention and the health of the game, you wouldn't engage in the practice.  The trade off is that there will be more people for everyone to raid, since the raid targets are less liable to rage quit. Something to think about.

 

When the test server was first annouced many months ago, I went and made 300m in cash and held 9 treasures.  Please, don't assume that the test server is anything like the actual server we play on.  The dynamics are totally different, not to mention people often get masses of resources and cash handed to them by Admin. 

 

Those that 'try the game and don't like it' have zero bearing on me and my raids, as well as those 'super arrgh nations', to get in to our range, you'd need to be at least 3-4 months old.  So once more, stop with the utter bullshit that our tactics of low score/strong military impacts on new players.  It does not.  It's the failing of the game from the off that causes the retention issues. It's the slow pace of the game, from starting an account to completing all you need to do in a day takes about 15 minutes, after the first day, it's 2 minutes.  The game does not grab peoples attention.

 

It's not my responsibility to play the game for other peoples enjoyment.  If they are not willing to seek the protection needed, then they deserve to be raided.

  • Upvote 2
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.