Jump to content

Why the game favors one side


Paladin
 Share

Recommended Posts

The latest changes to improvement mechanics have further solidified one side of Orbis' treaty web hold on power even more securely and the formula for how is pretty simple:

The losing side of the latest conflict is INQ. Tomorrow it will be another side, but they serve as a good example for right now. Perfect example, in fact.

INQ lost arguably the most infrastructure in this last conflict and their upper tier was absolutely destroyed, creating months of work for their upper tier nations to get back on their feet.

The main reason INQ is at the disadvantage and Syndisphere/TKR and friends win again is simple: Syndi/TKR and friends' upper tier have the slots to mitigate the damage caused by the latest update, INQ and friends upper and mid-tier do not. It's that simple.

Lost a bunch of infra last war and you're now trying to get back to 115% commerce after these latest changes? Too bad, you still haven't even gotten back to your old slot allotment and you'll have to destroy even more improvements to accomplish that. Can't get 115% commerce, which is vital in rebuilding? Too bad, now the multi-month journey to rebuilding is going to take even longer.

Did you not take a lot of infra damage last war? Good, rebuilding will be even easier than it was before for you.

Essentially the gap of power has just widened deeper, and the timing of this rollout, whether intended to or not, definitely favors one side.

(Everyone is hurt by it, but some far more than others).

EDIT: Just to clarify before some people start getting defensive, I don't hold anything against one side or another, really, it's just a game. It's tough to call it a fun game or even a fair game, regardless of side one is on, when the ultimate referee to the game decides to change rules and move goalposts shortly after or even sometimes during conflicts (nod to the old Arrgh, who admittedly needed to be nerfed back in those days, but who so happened to get their nerf in the middle of a war).

Edited by Paladin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well INQ really failed to capitalise on all the alliances that chose not to get involved, for one reason or another. To give the full list, there was: Hogwarts (who were initially neutral), KT, Spectrum, Nuke Bloc, Sparta, Arrgh, Roz Wei or CoS. These names could have made all the difference (and to be fair they still can), it's just that INQ think that they can continue to throw their weight at Syndisphere and the outcome is always the same. The fact that they've done this so repetitively just lends to the fact that those names would have all the more reason NOT to be on INQs side (take a look at the reaction to OWR treatying lordaeron, you'll see what I mean). Sure, the fact you lost once means that you'll probably continue losing because simply attacking them over and over clearly doesn't work - in fact, I'd say the more you do it, the more heavily you seem to suffer for it as the gap grows. Had INQ actually done some FA with the aforementioned alliances, the war would probably have been a different story, but instead chose to go along with the tired old strategy that has failed you all of these times. 

And squealing at the issues that you brought upon yourself will not fix them, for fear of pandering to the losing side. Realistically, the dynamic of the game is up to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Paladin said:

The latest changes to improvement mechanics have further solidified one side of Orbis' treaty web hold on power even more securely and the formula for how is pretty simple:

The losing side of the latest conflict is INQ. Tomorrow it will be another side, but they serve as a good example for right now. Perfect example, in fact.

INQ lost arguably the most infrastructure in this last conflict and their upper tier was absolutely destroyed, creating months of work for their upper tier nations to get back on their feet.

The main reason INQ is at the disadvantage and Syndisphere/TKR and friends win again is simple: Syndi/TKR and friends' upper tier have the slots to mitigate the damage caused by the latest update, INQ and friends upper and mid-tier do not. It's that simple.

Lost a bunch of infra last war and you're now trying to get back to 115% commerce after these latest changes? Too bad, you still haven't even gotten back to your old slot allotment and you'll have to destroy even more improvements to accomplish that. Can't get 115% commerce, which is vital in rebuilding? Too bad, now the multi-month journey to rebuilding is going to take even longer.

Did you not take a lot of infra damage last war? Good, rebuilding will be even easier than it was before for you.

Essentially the gap of power has just widened deeper, and the timing of this rollout, whether intended to or not, definitely favors one side.

(Everyone is hurt by it, but some far more than others).

EDIT: Just to clarify before some people start getting defensive, I don't hold anything against one side or another, really, it's just a game. It's tough to call it a fun game or even a fair game, regardless of side one is on, when the ultimate referee to the game decides to change rules and move goalposts shortly after or even sometimes during conflicts (nod to the old Arrgh, who admittedly needed to be nerfed back in those days, but who so happened to get their nerf in the middle of a war).

To be fair, when you win, you get the spoils of victory.

The problem is those who get the spoils of victory aren't willing to compete among themselves.

On the other hand, those who lost the spoils of victory aren't willing to acknowledge their defeat and divide up to create a new alignment in the game.

If those who won competed among themselves, but those who lost likewise don't, then they're asking to be overtaken.

The losers can't expect the winners to compete if the losers don't compete as well.  The recent peace agreement was an oversimplified abomination that didn't really change or fix anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair points.

INQ was supposed to be the winners competing among themselves as 3 of the 4 alliances in it intentionally broke away from Syndi so the game could be more interesting. We are still left with the conundrum that these changes Alex pushed have made the gap wider between perpetual winners and those on the outside of that winner circle; especially given the game didn't need any more widening of that gap as it was.

Edited by Paladin
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2017 at 4:35 AM, Gabranth said:

The fact that they've done this so repetitively just lends to the fact that those names would have all the more reason NOT to be on INQs side

You do realize that INQ and Syndi have only gone to war once, right? Once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record as a top tier member of VE that got rolled in multiple wars, its actually significantly easier to rebuild post war as a large nation than it is as a small to mid tier nation.  It should only take you a few weeks at most, if its taking you months, you either had 0 warchest, way too much infra to start with, or you have no idea what you are doing.

The other side has had more than enough time to rebuild before sheeps rolled out the changes, so that makes for a terrible excuse.  Also you only need 1000 infra to get back to 115% income 17 econ improvements, 1 nuke plant, 1 police station, 1 hospital (the subway may be good enough to get your pollution to 0)  It costs a whooping 2 million to get from 0 to 1k infra in a city. (6.7 mill to go from 0-1500 infra)

But this is why when you are on the losing side you should be trying to do as much damage to your opponent as humanly possible.  So that even if it does take you a few weeks to get back up and running, at least you are also setting your opponent back as well.

The other thing not taken into account is when the losing side drags out a war on purpose.  When you have to start tapping into your alliance rebuild reserves to keep fighting, you are now directly affecting how long its going to take to rebuild post war, so if you are going to drag a war out, is it going to do more damage to your opponent, or yourself? 

All peace time is, is the time you use to prepare for the next war.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 7/14/2017 at 11:59 AM, Buorhann said:

Here's why Syndisphere wins:

We adapt and change very well.

I assume having considered the problems with that. I don't really object to the problems as I find the war stuff pretty dull and prefer working to produce things for my alliance and trading on the market. If one side remains more powerful to the point of pseudo-hegemoney what'll be done with the players who do care about that should they lose interest and abandon the game?

 

Edit: Whoa, sorry for bringing this back up. I didn't notice the date until after I'd submitted.

Edited by ComradeMilton

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've played plenty of social strategy games where commies win.

It typically happens because there's some artistic element that they remain motivated by.  

When math is important, the capitalists usually come out on top. 

Kind of ironic considering how commies are supposed to relish scientific materialism while blaming capitalism for being traditionally useless, but whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

I've played plenty of social strategy games where commies win.

It typically happens because there's some artistic element that they remain motivated by.  

When math is important, the capitalists usually come out on top. 

Kind of ironic considering how commies are supposed to relish scientific materialism while blaming capitalism for being traditionally useless, but whatever.

For better or worse, RL commies tend not to be the same types of people as commies in social strategy games. IC attraction to communism usually seems to stem from role play opportunities and not economic or military optimization.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Two games I've played with alliances setup with a command economy. No real preference either way, it just makes things easier.

Yea, I've tried explaining that before to people.  Sometimes, command strategies are nice for players who don't have a lot of time.  They want to participate, but appreciate someone else helping out who keeps track of things.

In essence, it's more of a fraternal club than a real commune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

Yea, I've tried explaining that before to people.  Sometimes, command strategies are nice for players who don't have a lot of time.  They want to participate, but appreciate someone else helping out who keeps track of things.

In essence, it's more of a fraternal club than a real commune.

Kind of no. Unless there's a reason to get into something that detailed, it' pretty much just not very similar at all, to be honest.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2017 at 4:44 PM, ComradeMilton said:

Kind of no. Unless there's a reason to get into something that detailed, it' pretty much just not very similar at all, to be honest.

The point is to let government decide how to run your country.  It irons out the details for you so all you have to do is participate and take pride in being part of what's done.

On top of that, you consent to join.  It's not like you're compelled to by default of your birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The illusion or delusion more preferably of being able to have total command of an economy is precisely why alliances which follow such a model fail. Individual nations are better able to take more efficient choices in regards to economic action than a planned economic policy ever could or can achieve. Take NPO as an example, they literally curb their own growth in order to maintain the delusion of bring in control of their own economy when a simple and small lessening of taxes would see both their economic and resource output increase substantially with minimal effort due to their own members being able to efficiently invest in their own nations for specific outcomes.

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good alliance needs 2-3 days to rebuild everyone at least to 1500 infra because a good alliance always keep in the bank enough money to rebuild post war, a bad alliance scream for white peace until there are no money in the bank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tormund Giantsbane said:

The illusion or delusion more preferably of being able to have total command of an economy is precisely why alliances which follow such a model fail. Individual nations are better able to take more efficient choices in regards to economic action than a planned economic policy ever could or can achieve. Take NPO as an example, they literally curb their own growth in order to maintain the delusion of bring in control of their own economy when a simple and small lessening of taxes would see both their economic and resource output increase substantially with minimal effort due to their own members being able to efficiently invest in their own nations for specific outcomes.

Eh... this isn't real life economics we're talking about with subjective utility preferences.  This is a game where players organize together, and it can be objectively calculated what an efficient strategy is.  Curbing growth is efficient when you think about what's the best way to maximize output since city and infrastructure costs ramp up in this game.  Yea, you need to grow enough to account for limited war slots, but ultimately, if you want as many resources as feasible, you're better off subsidizing a greater quantity instead of a greater quality of players.

2 hours ago, Micchan said:

A good alliance needs 2-3 days to rebuild everyone at least to 1500 infra because a good alliance always keep in the bank enough money to rebuild post war, a bad alliance scream for white peace until there are no money in the bank

If savings defines a good alliance, then there would be no reason for anyone to play this game after the first alliance was made.  By default, any following alliances would have less savings than the first alliance.  The first alliance would always have the opportunity to pounce on whoever it wanted before it got built up enough.

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.