Jump to content

Improvement Decay Curve


Caecus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, then how about this: we could have an improvement decay curve.


 


For example, after you have lost infrastructure, you could have improvements "lose power" over a period of time. For example, after you have fought a battle and your total infrastructure in one city only supports 20 improvements, but you have 40, every 6 turns (or whatever time frame), an improvement is lost, until you are left with the improvements that your infrastructure can handle. That way, it forces people to rebuild up back to their infra level, but doesn't destroy the improvements fast enough for someone losing the war to be screwed forever. 


 


The improvement that is lost is random. If it is a military improvement, the capacity of that improvement is disbanded. The biggest problem that I see with this so far is that it increases the rebuilding time for some and it does punish larger nations after nuclear war. 


 


Thoughts?


 


https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11955-a-treatise-on-the-duplicity-of-anti-pirate-activities/page-1


  • Upvote 2

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I plugged this a while ago,it didn't take. 

It would need to be coupled with a reduction in infra damage and increased chance to destroy improvements, because there is a serious imbalance there. And instead of losing the improvement, it would have to just switch off, otherwise the damage from nukes would be unreal.

Also there should be a grace level of "free" support for improvements. Say 10 to 15% of your improvements don't require infra to run. This prevents a system like this from getting too out of hand.

Also, ideally, we'd be able to switch of improvements ourselves, or at least decide the order in which they turn off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I plugged this a while ago,it didn't take. 

 

It would need to be coupled with a reduction in infra damage and increased chance to destroy improvements, because there is a serious imbalance there. And instead of losing the improvement, it would have to just switch off, otherwise the damage from nukes would be unreal.

 

Also there should be a grace level of "free" support for improvements. Say 10 to 15% of your improvements don't require infra to run. This prevents a system like this from getting too out of hand.

 

Also, ideally, we'd be able to switch of improvements ourselves, or at least decide the order in which they turn off.

 

That I could go with. I still think the improvement switch off should be random though, I imagine it would be very complicated to arrange an order both in terms of game mechanics and complexity of gameplay. 

 

Do you know what the criticism for this was when you put this up for suggestion? Better yet, if you have the link to the suggestion topic? I honestly think this is a good fix. Granted, I've only thought about this for like 10 minutes. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That I could go with. I still think the improvement switch off should be random though, I imagine it would be very complicated to arrange an order both in terms of game mechanics and complexity of gameplay. 

 

Do you know what the criticism for this was when you put this up for suggestion? Better yet, if you have the link to the suggestion topic? I honestly think this is a good fix. Granted, I've only thought about this for like 10 minutes. 

Can't remember, but i think it was something along the lines of making it too hard to come back from. Which is why the infra damage to improvement destruction ratio needs to be fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Improvements turning off at random makes me think of brownouts.

 

Maybe have a cheaper project called "emergency generators" or something to keep 15% of your infra powered at all times.

  • Upvote 1

x0H0NxD.jpg?1

 

01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine

01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port
01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you

01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the too hard to come back from was the problem then allow players to prioritize improvements. If that is to hard then categorize them. So a setting where I say turn off my raw first, then manufacturing, then commerce, then military, then power.

 

If I need money/stuff over military then I prior those "below" mil.

 

Overall the OP's idea seems workable.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, maybe, it forces the person the next time they log on to choose deactivation of improvements? I see the purpose of choosing deactivating improvements now...

 

 

Can't remember, but i think it was something along the lines of making it too hard to come back from. Which is why the infra damage to improvement destruction ratio needs to be fixed.

 

Even with the time frame? Like, say, they get a grace period of 5 days before the improvement countdown starts going. And it would be one improvement per city per whatever time frame. I don't think that it's too bad... The entire point is to make sure that people don't stay there forever. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, maybe, it forces the person the next time they log on to choose deactivation of improvements? I see the purpose of choosing deactivating improvements now...

 

 

 

Even with the time frame? Like, say, they get a grace period of 5 days before the improvement countdown starts going. And it would be one improvement per city per whatever time frame. I don't think that it's too bad... The entire point is to make sure that people don't stay there forever.

I suppose the "next time you log in" solution would need some work. I could just not log in for 3 or so days and game the system?

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better suggestion then the one Sheepy and Pre are trying to push.  It seems that low infra and high improvement slots is what really has peoples knickers in a twist (as if it's some sort of major advantage), this tackles it without resorting to the extreme of losing one every 50 infra.

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better suggestion then the one Sheepy and Pre are trying to push.  It seems that low infra and high improvement slots is what really has peoples knickers in a twist (as if it's some sort of major advantage), this tackles it without resorting to the extreme of losing one every 50 infra.

The score change is necessary as well, but this is the more pressing issue imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The score change is necessary as well,

That's what was said before the last change and has been shown to be a falsehood. I suppose we are all insane since we are fixated on doing the same thing again and expecting different results.

  • Upvote 1

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The score change is necessary as well, but this is the more pressing issue imo.

 

I don't think it is, I need only 16 slots to hold a near full military build, 20 slots to hold full, due to pop caps.  This is 800-1000 infra, you wouldn't be gaming the system and you'd be playing as intended (each 50 infra is one slot).  With this build I would still be a pain in the arse.  Unless you are suggesting that infra has all the upsides with no downsides.  Which from what I can see, that is what people want with this up date.  To match a fighting account as well as having a decent economy, to me, is not fair. 

  • Upvote 1

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is, I need only 16 slots to hold a near full military build, 20 slots to hold full, due to pop caps. This is 800-1000 infra, you wouldn't be gaming the system and you'd be playing as intended (each 50 infra is one slot). With this build I would still be a pain in the arse. Unless you are suggesting that infra has all the upsides with no downsides. Which from what I can see, that is what people want with this up date. To match a fighting account as well as having a decent economy, to me, is not fair.

Fairness is not my main concern with this update. Game balance and future conflicts, or lack thereof, is.

 

With this change, in the OP, war between alliances remains likely.

 

With the Pre/Sheepy change it becomes less likely. This is confusing since pre said, in a long rambling diatribe, that he wants to keep the game interesting. However, his proposed change, that he seems to have convinced admin of, makes that less likely and moves the game toward more (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) like play (to paraphrase him). I am unsure how to round out this apparent contradiction unless pre does not actually understand what the game mechanics change will do or he is being duplicitous and wants to move the game toward a style that he favors. Unless there is a third option I remain unsure which of the two or both is factual.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fairness is not my main concern with this update. Game balance and future conflicts, or lack thereof, is.

Balance and fairness imo go hand in hand.  Each style needs a plus and a negative, which roughly should balance out.  Giving one style all the plus points, leads to one style of play.  Which effects balance and future conflicts.

  • Upvote 1

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Balance and fairness imo go hand in hand. Each style needs a plus and a negative, which roughly should balance out. Giving one style all the plus points, leads to one style of play. Which effects balance and future conflicts.

That is a fair enough point. For the total community and health of the game I find the "balance" point more pressing. However, yes, the fairness piece is linked.

-signature removed for rules violation-

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.