reverse nation damage

[Hereno]

i'm currently being kept at war and infra bombed by a nation who, with the new changes to score, has gone from around 650 score (my old score, approximately) to over 1,000 score

 

because this would not be allowed under the new war mechanics, and because as per your admission the damage i've suffered at the hands of this nation by not only having my entire nation smashed by them, but also by 3 other people who were able to beat me after they destroyed my forces, is because of this exploiting nation using unintended game strategy to attack me - i request that the war be ended and that the infrastructure and money i've lost in the war be given back to me in compensation

 

while i'm aware that this opens a can of worms to everybody, i feel as though that's a can of worms that should be addressed. simply put, if this problem was that big that you went and completely revamped the score mechanic so that over 75% of my current score is coming from my 7 cities, it shouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for you as the game developer to give us compensation for what you yourself admit was a serious problem that needed to be fixed. apparently so quickly that in under a week of testing you put the changes into the live version of the game which has been out of beta for over a year.

 

thank you for your time and consideration. again, while i was and remain vehemently opposed to the changes, i feel as though it is only logical and fair to compensate us who had our nations severely damaged by something beyond our control. after all, if it was within our control to prevent this damage, it wouldn't be necessary to change the score, and for the record i was *not* one of the people running a low infra build - all of my cities had 1k infra in them to match my 20 improvements, while my opponent still only has one city with over 500 infra, at 700 infra, and still has about 5,000 tanks and a massive air force.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Hereno

[Phiney]

Who is to say the war wasn't declared when you were in range and would have been in range even with the changes, just you lost military and they gained military since. Most wars end with the two parties no longer being in range.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Phiney

[Samdoo]

I feel like I`ve heard this compliant before... hmm should probably set your nation fortress and "find better allies".

 

Or do you mean to say a defensive nation can't react to being attacked..You are a touch late to that party, many people agree that one battles damages are much too damaging and never biegeing is quite boring. 

 

The score change was to stop this nation from being at this power indefinitely, which will be the case. It does further punish a partial standing military (still waiting for this compliant about a full mill nation getting wrecked, this is still the case.) 

 

The change made is working how it should have, doesn't mean other issues we are pointing out are yet to be addressed and maybe they don't need to be addressed.

[K. Steel]

I feel like I`ve heard this compliant before... hmm should probably set your nation fortress and "find better allies".

 

Or do you mean to say a defensive nation can't react to being attacked..You are a touch late to that party, many people agree that one battles damages are much too damaging and never biegeing is quite boring. 

 

The score change was to stop this nation from being at this power indefinitely, which will be the case. It does further punish a partial standing military (still waiting for this compliant about a full mill nation getting wrecked, this is still the case.) 

 

The change made is working how it should have, doesn't mean other issues we are pointing out are yet to be addressed and maybe they don't need to be addressed.

 

 

Hereno was referring to the sudden change and update of Nation score.....most that were affected the most are those nations that were currently at war when the change happened.... most of them are winning the war before the change.. ..after the sudden change people starts to down declare .....

 

 

 

Coz it happened to me, i woke, up just to find 3 people down declared war on me... they had less tanks but more planes... i was with 5 active wars when the change happened......i lost 135k soldiers , 11250 tanks, and over 700 planes....infra destroyed and money  stolen....millions.....

 

I don't know if Sheepy saw that this would happen to those with active wars when he made the change .....because if he did he could at least cancel all active wars before he made it.....

 

All those resources suddenly was lost ....days, weeks, months of saving them,  just vanished......

 

please return the resources and reverse the damage.......or you can just do a System Restore...and cancel or stop all active wars before making the change....

 

I just hope this will not fall to deaf ears..............

[EliteCanada]

Hereno was referring to the sudden change and update of Nation score.....most that were affected the most are those nations that were currently at war when the change happened.... most of them are winning the war before the change.. ..after the sudden change people starts to down declare .....

 

 

 

Coz it happened to me, i woke, up just to find 3 people down declared war on me... they had less tanks but more planes... i was with 5 active wars when the change happened......i lost 135k soldiers , 11250 tanks, and over 700 planes....infra destroyed and money  stolen....millions.....

 

I don't know if Sheepy saw that this would happen to those with active wars when he made the change .....because if he did he could at least cancel all active wars before he made it.....

 

All those resources suddenly was lost ....days, weeks, months of saving them,  just vanished......

 

please return the resources and reverse the damage.......or you can just do a System Restore...and cancel or stop all active wars before making the change....

 

I just hope this will not fall to deaf ears..............

 

Well you know what they say about vengeance. 

 

Also enough ellipses? Damn. 

 

Edit: Ever thought of PMing for peace and paying for a protection contract from the people raiding you? 

Edited March 30, 2016 by EliteCanada

[Dalinar]

Hereno was referring to the sudden change and update of Nation score.....most that were affected the most are those nations that were currently at war when the change happened.... most of them are winning the war before the change.. ..after the sudden change people starts to down declare .....

 

 

 

Coz it happened to me, i woke, up just to find 3 people down declared war on me... they had less tanks but more planes... i was with 5 active wars when the change happened......i lost 135k soldiers , 11250 tanks, and over 700 planes....infra destroyed and money  stolen....millions.....

 

I don't know if Sheepy saw that this would happen to those with active wars when he made the change .....because if he did he could at least cancel all active wars before he made it.....

 

All those resources suddenly was lost ....days, weeks, months of saving them,  just vanished......

 

please return the resources and reverse the damage.......or you can just do a System Restore...and cancel or stop all active wars before making the change....

 

I just hope this will not fall to deaf ears..............

 

We attacked after the score change, not before it (you quickly dropped out of range after our blitz - losing 110k soldiers and 7k tanks will do that). I was barely out of range (as was Lordship - the other guy that hit you). We had to sell military to get in range to declare, quickly rebought Air/Tanks and did our attacks. We had more tanks when we attacked (you were at ~11700 if I remember correctly, Lordship had 12500 and I had 13100). You were also at 476 planes, which allowed us to safely drop some planes to get into range.

[Hereno]

Who is to say the war wasn't declared when you were in range and would have been in range even with the changes, just you lost military and they gained military since. Most wars end with the two parties no longer being in range.

i'd be perfectly happy with sheepy pulling the numbers and seeing if i would've been in range to begin with and making the change based on that

 

i was 7 cities, 1k infra in each, 75,000 soldiers, 1.2k tanks, 468 planes, and under 5 ships

 

currently have 300 score from cities, doubling my infra would give me around 150 score from that. if 450 score goes up to around i guess 850-900 based on that relatively small military i'll gladly eat my own damages

 

that said though, if i'd have still been in range, these changes haven't actually helped our situation at all because the entire point was to make it so that guy couldn't declare on me, so lmao

[seabasstion]

is it the war with donsy land declared on 3/26 at 726pm game time?

 

at 621pm game time on 3/26 hereno had an old score of  587.2 (7 cities, 6621.49 infra, 22085 soldiers, 0 tanks, 468 planes, 1 ship, 0 missiles, 0 nukes, 0 projects) . this is a new score of 712.6

at 621pm game time on 3/26 donsy had an old score of  749.4 (8 cities, 7588.63 infra, 116916 soldiers, 25 tanks, 580 planes, 0 ship, 0 missiles, 0 nukes, 2 projects) . this is a new score of 929.4

 

587.2 / 749.4 = 0.784 (in range)

712.6 / 929.4 = 0.767 (in range)

 

i dont have a data point between those missing 65 minutes 

[Hereno]

is it the war with donsy land declared on 3/26 at 726pm game time?

 

at 621pm game time on 3/26 hereno had an old score of  587.2 (7 cities, 6621.49 infra, 22085 soldiers, 0 tanks, 468 planes, 1 ship, 0 missiles, 0 nukes, 0 projects) . this is a new score of 712.6

at 621pm game time on 3/26 donsy had an old score of  749.4 (8 cities, 7588.63 infra, 116916 soldiers, 25 tanks, 580 planes, 0 ship, 0 missiles, 0 nukes, 2 projects) . this is a new score of 929.4

 

587.2 / 749.4 = 0.784 (in range)

712.6 / 929.4 = 0.767 (in range)

 

i dont have a data point between those missing 65 minutes

no, although the fact that i've been hit by multiple nations using "the arrgh tactic" from both VE and BK in just the past 2-3 weeks ought to tell you guys something

Edited March 31, 2016 by Hereno

[seabasstion]

what war(s) are you referring to when you say?

 

 

 

i'd be perfectly happy with sheepy pulling the numbers and seeing if i would've been in range to begin with and making the change based on that

[Hereno]

what war(s) are you referring to when you say?

 

are you being purposefully obtuse

 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=105046

 

war with stellaland in case that link doesn't work.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Hereno

[Samdoo]

no, although the fact that i've been hit by multiple nations using "the arrgh tactic" from both VE and BK in just the past 2-3 weeks ought to tell you guys something

 

Umm the score change removed "the arrgh tatic"- This actual tatic was a nation with 10 cities UPDECLARING on a 7 city nation. there is no way this can happen anymore. Due to the massive score increase of units. 

 

The war you are showing is someone down declaring on you. The nation that attacked you can easily be attacked by other nations in the NS. 

 

Nations with full military have their NS boosted, so it increases the number of people that can fight you. (having a partial military, is still pointless but that'd be a different compliant.)

[donsberger]

That war was declared even before mine and don't be upset that because you attacked a Black Knights member we attacked back

[Hereno]

Umm the score change removed "the arrgh tatic"- This actual tatic was a nation with 10 cities UPDECLARING on a 7 city nation. there is no way this can happen anymore. Due to the massive score increase of units. 

 

The war you are showing is someone down declaring on you. The nation that attacked you can easily be attacked by other nations in the NS. 

 

Nations with full military have their NS boosted, so it increases the number of people that can fight you. (having a partial military, is still pointless but that'd be a different compliant.)

 

.......

 

do i really need to explain this to you?

 

just stop posting in my thread.

[seabasstion]

are you being purposefully obtuse

 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=105046

 

war with stellaland in case that link doesn't work.

Well that's quite rude. To answer your question no I am not being purposefully obtuse. All your wars had expired by the time I saw this and you never had mentioned what specific war you were talking about. All I was trying to do was answer your request for data pulling. I'm sorry if I annoyed you by not inferring the correct war when I was trying to help you with your question.

 

to answer your initial request for data though, 1 hour prior to stellaland declaring on you:

 

hereno: 7 cities, 6821.12 infra, 77094 soldiers, 1051 tanks, 468 planes, 0 ships, 0 missiles, 0 nukes, 0 projects . old score = 644.22 new score = 795.62

stellaland: 8 cities, 3881.84 infra, 45947 soldiers, 4400 tanks, 695 planes, 4 ships, 0 missiles, 0 nukes, 0 projects. old score = 625.07 new score = 1045.52

 

 

so i think this is a pretty novel case for why the score change was made. anyone could look at this and see that stellaland has a built in advantage in the military. almost 4x the tanks way more than makes up for 30k soldier deficiency. also stella has an additional city for bigger daily buying power and more planes. in a 1v1 it would be a no brainer barring inactivity or purposefully poor strategy that stella would be able to beat you. yet stella actually had a lower score than you in the old score system.

 

this isn't necessarily the problem though. the problem is who else stella could have down declared on on this already low score. a 625.07 down declare could go as low as 468.80 in the down declare. at the time of this data pull there here are the nations by city count stella would have been able to declare on:

 

4 cities: 4

5 cities: 46

6 cities: 134

7 cities: 165

8 cities: 152

9 cities: 101

10 cities: 70

11 cities: 19

12 cities: 10

13 cities: 1

14 cities: 2

15 cities: 0

16 cities: 0

17 cities: 0

 

here is a graph of this distribution

 

 

it is pretty easy to see there are many more nations they can down declare on than updeclare on. when the game is designed so that you should realistically only be able to down declare 25% and updeclare 75% it is pretty indicative there is a fundamental problem with this score considering military strength is largely tied to city count. the common response we've heard is that if they carry a big military it wont be an issue but we ive just demonstrated that through that philosophy there were 4 nations that get 'rewarded' with a big military by being in the range of someone with twice the city count they have. and another 46 that can have this nation with 60% more cities than they have declare on them. 

 

if we compare it to the new score system this is the city distribution based on the declaration ranges of  784.14 ->  1829.66

 

4 cities: 0

5 cities: 3

6 cities: 16

7 cities: 73

8 cities: 105

9 cities: 131

10 cities: 168

11 cities: 98

12 cities: 67

13 cities: 45

14 cities: 16

15 cities: 7

16 cities: 4

17 cities: 3

 

 

i think this distribution better encapsulates the idea behind 25% downdeclare 75% updeclare but that is just my interpretation on it. sheepy may have a different vision on it but it stands to reason that if military might is very tightly controlled by city count, then to keep bigger more powerful nations from having the ability to pummel smaller nations at will they should be limited in their reach. not eliminated...just limited.

 

 

so to answer your question: yes, you would have been in his range prior to the score update and after the score update. infact you would have been an 'updeclare' for him prior to the score update and barely in range after the score update. i think this serves as evidence that it wasn't ideal before

Edited March 31, 2016 by seabasstion

[Hereno]

as much as i appreciate all the effort you put into that post, two things:

 

1. stellaland had over 5k tanks when they declared on me, so every calculation you just made is wrong (seriously just look at the NS graph on their nation)

2. it isn't rude to ask someone straight up if they're being purposefully obtuse about something. when you assume, you make...

[seabasstion]

1) That graph just shows where you two were at the end of the day I believe so that isn't the best metric either but youre right - it does go to show they had buying power. there are several ways it could have happened but all pretty much have the same effect. 

 

so in the hour between my scrape and then declaring war they bought tanks. Or this could easily have the same effect as declaring and then building, or declaring, attacking, and then rebuilding so the conclusion is still valid as i was more demonstrating the point of how the old score system wasn't necessarily behaving as what the game intent may have been. at any rate though this observed effect you felt from stella would have been just as likely. are you really going to argue that the potential extra 800 tanks stella may have bought (since neither of us can say for certain they did) before declaring on you was the cause behind this curbstomp? when they could have just as easily declared and then bought them? that you would have had a fighting chance if it wasn't for that??

 

i think you are kidding yourself if you think stella would have bought out of range before declaring on you if the new score were in place. i think it is much more likely they would have declared then bought their 800 tanks under the operation of the new system. in all reality though the issue whether the buy happened before or after the declaration is irrelevant to my input on that portion of the discussion since i was more or less addressing your clear opposition of the new score system rather than the actual nuts and bolts of this retroactive issue. i personally dont care if they did or they didn't - i care that a pretty military heavy 8 city nation build could have declared on 50 nations with 5 cities or less in the old system. an effect which i feel is indicative of something wrong so my points are still valid and mathematically sound at that snapshot 1 hour before they declared on you. with this new system that number is lowered to 3 nations with 5 cities or less. whether they bought an additional 800 tanks AFTER that analysis doesn't invalidate any of the figures or statements i made on that snapshot.

2) lol OK - that is an interesting opinion; good luck with that 

Edited April 1, 2016 by seabasstion

[Phiney]

Sorry seabass Hereno is completely unable to see himself as anything but a shining light of factual correctness. Thankyou for these conclusions and interesting statistics In general though, shines a lot of light on the situation.

[Hereno]

1) That graph just shows where you two were at the end of the day I believe so that isn't the best metric either but youre right - it does go to show they had buying power. there are several ways it could have happened but all pretty much have the same effect. 

 

so in the hour between my scrape and then declaring war they bought tanks. Or this could easily have the same effect as declaring and then building, or declaring, attacking, and then rebuilding so the conclusion is still valid as i was more demonstrating the point of how the old score system wasn't necessarily behaving as what the game intent may have been. at any rate though this observed effect you felt from stella would have been just as likely. are you really going to argue that the potential extra 800 tanks stella may have bought (since neither of us can say for certain they did) before declaring on you was the cause behind this curbstomp? when they could have just as easily declared and then bought them? that you would have had a fighting chance if it wasn't for that??

 

i think you are kidding yourself if you think stella would have bought out of range before declaring on you if the new score were in place. i think it is much more likely they would have declared then bought their 800 tanks under the operation of the new system. in all reality though the issue whether the buy happened before or after the declaration is irrelevant to my input on that portion of the discussion since i was more or less addressing your clear opposition of the new score system rather than the actual nuts and bolts of this retroactive issue. i personally dont care if they did or they didn't - i care that a pretty military heavy 8 city nation build could have declared on 50 nations with 5 cities or less in the old system. an effect which i feel is indicative of something wrong so my points are still valid and mathematically sound at that snapshot 1 hour before they declared on you. with this new system that number is lowered to 3 nations with 5 cities or less. whether they bought an additional 800 tanks AFTER that analysis doesn't invalidate any of the figures or statements i made on that snapshot.

 

2) lol OK - that is an interesting opinion; good luck with that 

i was trying to make a point. you don't actually think i thought sheepy was going to give me any of my shit back, do you?

 

...don't answer that.

[Phiney]

Hereno just admit your point completely failed. You've been proved wrong repeatedly, if anything the only point you made was in favour of the change, good work.

[Hereno]

Hereno just admit your point completely failed. You've been proved wrong repeatedly, if anything the only point you made was in favour of the change, good work.

it wasn't, though. they can still hit me, according to the flawed numbers given here which leave out almost 1/5 of the tanks that my opponent had. it is still completely possible for someone with more cities to skimp on infra and destroy people who are playing it "straight" by having their improvements match perfectly with their infrastructure level, as i was. it's now a down declare rather than an even declare, which yes, means that some nations will be spared who otherwise would have been in range, but the problem still exists and could have been so much more easily solved by just nerfing plane damage and having them hit improvements. now, building up from 0 to full military jumps your score up by 1/3 or more. that's ridiculous. what's equally as ridiculous is making such sweeping changes to the score mechanic over a year after launch. there has to be a way for nations on the losing end of wars to force the victors to come to the table and be able to fight back and make warring them for months on end not worth it, and having infrastructure matter highly to score not only puts high-infra nations at higher risk by being hit by larger nations with larger militaries, but also allows for nations who have been bombed into the ground to have an advantage in a war that they already lost.

 

plenty of times in the course of my being in arrgh, our members who were using this tactic had to buy back up and replenish their improvements. it's not a good long-term tactic, because it gimps your ability to fund it unless you're constantly using it. i'm much more concerned about a war system that already heavily favors the attacker - which is a good thing - now basically making it so attacking somebody once and beating them means you can more or less hold them at war forever because all that infra damage counts for very little in terms of lowering score. yeah, what happened to me sucks, but it was only possible because of those nations receiving a lot of funding from a very large alliance which had to specifically pick and coordinate nations to have larger militaries at the expense of being virtually worthless in terms of generating resources or revenue. yeah it sucks on my end to lose 2k infra in one war and be bombed back into the stone age but i've also been able to recover almost completely, on my own, with absolutely zero help from anybody else, just by selling off some resources and cashing in a couple of credits. i lost wars to 4 nations after trying to take on an entire alliance basically by myself and was virtually unaffected in the long term. i was set back by about a week, and if i were to rejoin arrgh and start raiding again, i could easily recoup my cash in 2-3 days of decent raiding.

 

my point is that the extent to which this was a huge, game-breaking problem was blown way out of proportion, was given a really quick haphazard response from the developer, and is going to have a lot of unforeseen (on your end) long-term consequences. as i've said before, if every alliance tried to do what arrgh did, we would all quickly find out how much of a drawback there actually is when suddenly nobody has anymore resources or cash because everybody has lost everything by investing in their military. you guys have all but broke the military system by making it even more ridiculously not worth it to keep an active military on hand, when before missiles, you could literally just sit and purchase your way through wars and not even fight back just by how overpowered commerce is once you start getting into the upper echelons of infra levels. and that's not even including all the resource production. we should be encouraging nations to have large militaries and to use them to slow growth. we should be discouraging stacking infra, to slow growth. we should be trying to have a game where people can actually catch up and can start the game now and within 2-3 months be able to hang in there with anybody else who takes the game seriously. imagine an MMORPG where there is no end-game or final level cap, but just endless leveling forever. it sounds ridiculous and that's what this game is, lol. anything that bucks that trend and keeps things in perspective, keeps nations from getting too far ahead of each other, and serves as a way to slow growth and encourage warfare and new players is a good thing. all of these were served, in addition to a promotion of teamwork, by having everything exactly as it was before. this situation where i'm fighting someone i have zero chance against hasn't even been prevented. what was the point?

[Phiney]

Wait, he had only 1 more city than you and half your infra. I fail to see how he was "unbeatable". That seems like a completely normal scenario for a 1v1 war. You either failed to have allies that could help you (a big part of this game is working with others and using co-ordination) or you just got beat fair and square. Seabass already proved he hit you and then bought the tanks, so the numbers aren't flawed at all. If you were going to stop people declaring on people with a single city less than them the amount of available targets would be rediculous.

[Hereno]

Wait, he had only 1 more city than you and half your infra. I fail to see how he was "unbeatable". That seems like a completely normal scenario for a 1v1 war. You either failed to have allies that could help you (a big part of this game is working with others and using co-ordination) or you just got beat fair and square. Seabass already proved he hit you and then bought the tanks, so the numbers aren't flawed at all. If you were going to stop people declaring on people with a single city less than them the amount of available targets would be rediculous.

 

in practice he was because he had a larger military, although i never described him as such. at the end of the day, it's a numbers game, and the people with the numbers are gonna win. that's how it has to be. like i completely understand where you're coming from, and i'm not trying to be dismissive of your argument, but you didn't really address the majority of my last post.