Jump to content

Revisiting Nation Score.


Sketchy
 Share

Recommended Posts

So I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but with the new war meta, I think we should revisit nation score values.

 

 

Currently:

 

Soldiers are worth 7.5 score per maxed city.

Tanks are worth 62.5 score per maxed city.

Planes are worth 45 score per maxed city.

Ships are worth 30 score per maxed city.

 

Cities are worth 50 score each.

1000 Infra is worth 25 score per city.

1000 infra is the minimum amount required to fit 5-5-5-3 military improvements + power.

 

So the minimum score per city, is 75, and the maximum is 220 at 1k infra, 245 at 2k infra, and 270 at 3k infra.

 

 

What is wrong with the system:

 

Thanks to the recent war changes, ships are now a part of the war meta, and will have a much larger impact on score ranges and down/updeclaring as a result.

 

Frankly, the numbers for military seem a bit arbitrary, planes are the dominant unit, even in the new system, and yet ground forces are 25 score more in total.

 

Additionally, soldiers are worth only 10% of the score of ground forces, despite being around 35% of the power (with munitions).

 

What should be changed:

 

Military Score should be split into ground, air and navy. And evened out equally.

 

Soldiers should be worth 15 score maxed per city, or 0.001 score each.

Tanks should be worth 25 score maxed per city, or 0.02 score each.

Planes should be worth 40 score maxed per city each, or 0.444444444(Would require rounding) each.

Ships should be worth 40 score maxed per city each, or 2.66666666667 score each.

 

City score should be increased to 80 per city.

 

This would make the minimum score per city 105, and the maximum 225 at 1k infra, 250 at 2k infra.

 

This would tighten score ranges, compensating for the change in the meta to make ships more prominent in war, and would create a more equal divide in troop scoring, as right now the scoring of troops doesn't really reflect their value.

 

Additionally, project score should either be removed, or reduced to a smaller amount like 5 score per project. The primary reasoning behind this is that not all projects effect war, and that projects are a choice between military strength or economic dominance, and people should not be handicapped for that choice. Using that line of logic, land might as well have nation score attached to it also.

Edited by Sketchy
  • Upvote 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree entirely, I think city score is too high. Soldiers are very weak units because they die so fast, they shouldn't count as 1/3rd of a tank because they do not have a tank's staying power.

 

I would set city score to 40 instead of 50, and leave everything else as it is.

 

I do agree that projects should not contribute to score, that is just double-counting infra and cities.

 

City score is already debilitating enough as it is, people discussing rerolling just to get rid of their city score pushing them further into more dangerous tiers. The two changes I would make is slightly reducing city score to 40 each but your first city adds 40 (currently only your second city adds score) and getting rid of project score since most of those are economic.

Edited by Ogaden
  • Upvote 4
tvPWtuA.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I believe that some aspects of the score system (tanks give too much score for what they do IMO) are arbitrary in nature, I generally agree with the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" mindset.

 

First of all, the only reason that there is so much discussion regarding score is that it is tied to the war module through declaration ranges. If the problem is that score (which is used to measure both non-military and military aspects of a nation) affects a nation's performance in only the military related aspects of the game, it may make more sense to have a separate military score solely affected by a nation's ability to recruit and support troops, (only city count and standing military numbers) while keeping the overall nations score as a metric for progress.

 

But that's not the point of this post...

 

The proposal which increases the score gained from military potential (cities) and generally reduces the score gained from actual military power would further nerf the submarine-nation strategy and punish players (t$ and their no ground forces) which do not max-out their military units by lowering their downdeclare capabilities. As it stands, the prevailing strategy in war still seems to be "to build as much ground and air as possible" so punishing players for inventing creative ways to utilize an otherwise monotonous system seems counter-intuitive. Not to compliment to Sheepy's game design and balancing, but tanks are described in the recruiting tab to be "ground battle enhancers" while "soldiers are the basic instruments of war." Ignoring the fact that planes are the basic instruments of war, tanks seem to be designed in a way so that they come with enough downfalls (expensive, large score gain, vulnerable to airstrikes) to make them not an immediate go-to when deciding what army to go to war with. (Even with all the downsides, having max tanks is still necessary to remain competitive because ground forces affect air combat and air combat dictates the outcome of the war.) 

 

I still think navy is stupid because ships increase your score, but don't affect your aircraft numbers, making you more likely to get hit by nations with more planes and lose...

If anything, ship score should be decreased, not increased.

 

For projects, the thing I said about infra also applies, although some military projects should have score attached...

 

Basically, If you want a more accurate representation of score by importance, keep cities at 50, no score for infra or projects (other than the Prop. Bureau and maybe CIA) 

Of the 145 score per city currently assigned to military units, 10 for soldiers, 55 for tanks, 70 for air, 10 for navy... 

 

^ edit to make clear that this is probably completely unnecessary (and would likely break more things than it would fix [it was meant to emphasize why assigning the same value to navy as to air is not a good idea]) anyways since score only really matters for the initial blitz/counter and if you get blitzed without max units, you're probably in trouble as long as the people hitting you don't start off with fortify or naval attacks or something)

 

Oh yeah, did you hear that the new fortify feature is busted?

Edited by Them

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree entirely, I think city score is too high. Soldiers are very weak units because they die so fast, they shouldn't count as 1/3rd of a tank because they do not have a tank's staying power.

 

I would set city score to 40 instead of 50, and leave everything else as it is.

 

I do agree that projects should not contribute to score, that is just double-counting infra and cities.

 

City score is already debilitating enough as it is, people discussing rerolling just to get rid of their city score pushing them further into more dangerous tiers. The two changes I would make is slightly reducing city score to 40 each but your first city adds 40 (currently only your second city adds score) and getting rid of project score since most of those are economic.

 

In regards to soldiers not having the staying power that tanks to, that is a fair point, so I suppose the argument could be for 10 score for soldiers 30 for tanks, or 5/35.

 

As for the city score argument, that is part of a different problem in regards to how war score ranges are %. The issue with your argument is that the higher the base city score, the more clearly defined and separated the tiers become, as everyone increased. Tightening the war score range a bit might be a suitable solution.

 

And you didn't address any of my points about the new meta for ships or planes or the arbitrary distribution of score.

 

 

First of all, the only reason that there is so much discussion regarding score is that it is tied to the war module through declaration ranges. If the problem is that score (which is used to measure both non-military and military aspects of a nation) affects a nation's performance in only the military related aspects of the game, it may make more sense to have a separate military score solely affected by a nation's ability to recruit and support troops, (only city count and standing military numbers) while keeping the overall nations score as a metric for progress.

 

 I think the idea behind this is nations that are beaten down are pushed down lower in score and if they have enough infra destroyed, they can't be re hit by the same large people.

 

 

 

The proposal which increases the score gained from military potential (cities) and generally reduces the score gained from actual military power would further nerf the submarine-nation strategy and punish players (t$ and their no ground forces) which do not max-out their military units by lowering their downdeclare capabilities. As it stands, the prevailing strategy in war still seems to be "to build as much ground and air as possible" so punishing players for inventing creative ways to utilize an otherwise monotonous system seems counter-intuitive. Not to compliment to Sheepy's game design and balancing, but tanks are described in the recruiting tab to be "ground battle enhancers" while "soldiers are the basic instruments of war." Ignoring the fact that planes are the basic instruments of war, tanks seem to be designed in a way so that they come with enough downfalls (expensive, large score gain, vulnerable to airstrikes) to make them not an immediate go-to when deciding what army to go to war with. (Even with all the downsides, having max tanks is still necessary to remain competitive because ground forces affect air combat and air combat dictates the outcome of the war.) 

 

I disagree with this assessment. Although creative strategy is a portion of it (which isn't eliminated just nerfed to more reasonable amounts) in my proposal, another circumstance is the fact it literally protects inactive/incompetent people who don't militarize. Since in order to hit those people, you need to decom your own army and increase your own risk just to hit them because they are too incompetent to build up. 

 

I think opposite arguments can be made for both points of view, the issue is the spread is too wide. In the current system, a 20 city nation can hit a 10 city nation rather comfortably if that 10 city nation is maxed. That is too wide. This issue might not have been as big in the old system when navy was optional, but with it becoming an important part of the new meta, the values need to be adjusted.

 

All the strategies you mentioned will still work, just not as well, and that isn't a bad thing, its makes the game less unfair.

 

Nerfing the ship score is just a weaksauce temperorary fix, at that point you might as well reconsider and readjust the entire system.

 

Also your compromise, "10 for soldiers, 55 for tanks, 70 for air, 10 for navy" actually does more to harm the inventive strategies t$ employed than mine does.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the idea behind this is nations that are beaten down are pushed down lower in score and if they have enough infra destroyed, they can't be re hit by the same large people.

I have to agree that this is a valid point, but it'll only make a difference if you have a large sum of infra lost and by that point, the war's probably decided... 

 

I disagree with this assessment. Although creative strategy is a portion of it (which isn't eliminated just nerfed to more reasonable amounts) in my proposal, another circumstance is the fact it literally protects inactive/incompetent people who don't militarize. Since in order to hit those people, you need to decom your own army and increase your own risk just to hit them because they are too incompetent to build up. 

Updeclares are a thing... If they're really incompetent or inactive, they probably won't be able to organize a double buy either.

 

I think opposite arguments can be made for both points of view, the issue is the spread is too wide. In the current system, a 20 city nation can hit a 10 city nation rather comfortably if that 10 city nation is maxed. That is too wide. This issue might not have been as big in the old system when navy was optional, but with it becoming an important part of the new meta, the values need to be adjusted.

Even so, a 10 city nation that is maxed can still beat a 20 city nation with little military... Why does navy affect this? It'll just be one more area for the 20 city nation to lose in. If you're talking about downdeclare range, there's no need to change the score formula.

 

All the strategies you mentioned will still work, just not as well, and that isn't a bad thing, its makes the game less unfair.

I'll take the line "how is it unfair if anyone can do it"

I think the problem is that the war module is too plane-centric. That's the root of all the "unfair" things that people try to solve.

 

Nerfing the ship score is just a weaksauce temperorary fix, at that point you might as well reconsider and readjust the entire system.

I agree. Ships'll still suck even if only for the resource drain. Still, it's a better fix than increasing the score. 

 

Also your compromise, "10 for soldiers, 55 for tanks, 70 for air, 10 for navy" actually does more to harm the inventive strategies t$ employed than mine does.

I think I addressed it. The point is that trying to change the score formula to make things more "fair" without fixing the underlying problems creates more problems than just leaving it alone.

Also, yeah it does. The strategy which t$ used took advantage of flaws in the current system (unit scores don't accurately represent their impact on the outcome of a war). I think that's fine, but if you want to change it so that they do (like you suggested with the part about tanks in the original post) you'll inevitably kill these strategies. I just think that if you do want to fix this problem, there are more efficient methods than what you proposed.

 

I guess the part about innovation wasn't a good argument.

Edited by Them

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A better option, imho, is shifting some of the score from units to military buildings. You still represent capacity without compounding the problem of havingredients a completely zeroed city being worth almost as much as it's millitary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or increase score from lower infra and have it taper off as you build higher. So the infra from 0 to 1000 is worth more than 1000 to 3000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-snip-

Okay let me clarify my position better. I'm not looking to make unit scores closer to their importance. I proposed that ground, air and navy all have equal effect on score, with tanks and soldiers sharing a portion of the ground score.

 

The reason I suggested this is because scaling unit score by importance removes the strategy involved in the variety of the units, whilst evening them allows for more flexibility.

 

The second portion of my argument was integrating ships into the score formula to reflect the current meta, which means increase their score to match the others. In the old system, Max tanks, planes and soldiers = 110 score per city, in my proposed system, tanks, planes, soldiers and ships are 120 score per city.

 

Ships are now an important part of the meta, so former downdeclare ranges which were already larger, are now larger.

 

 

"The point is that trying to change the score formula to make things more "fair" without fixing the underlying problems creates more problems than just leaving it alone."

 

The war system is riddled with underlying problems from its very core. And sheepy isn't interested in scrapping and restarting, so the best we can hope for is more balance within the current system. I disagree that attempting to increase balance makes things worse.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I'm not opposed to revisiting the score formula, and I think Sketchy is on the right track here. Honestly the existing score values are somewhat arbitrary, and based on the believe that as long as everyone is playing by the same rules (score formula), the players can compensate for any flaws in the formula. Which is more or less true, but I still agree the formula could be optimized better.

  • Upvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Wasn't nation score already being addressed on the test server?

 

I changed some things at once point, but ultimately scrapped the changes.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

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.