Jump to content
Inst

Fix Tiering

Recommended Posts

The game should just be one giant blob of everyone pointing planes, nukes, and d- at each other. Discuss.

 

(I actually have non-shit suggestions for how to fix tiering issues, but I'm about to go to bed.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Inst said:

The game should just be one giant blob of everyone pointing planes, nukes, and d- at each other. Discuss.

 

(I actually have non-shit suggestions for how to fix tiering issues, but I'm about to go to bed.)

Then why post shit suggestions? Go to bed and save us the hassle?

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so that I remember to fix the post.

 

====

 

There are two basic problems with tiering. First, the game can be argued to NOT have enough tiering. Second, the game's tiering problem can be argued to be too much.

 

====

 

How can the game, for instance, not have enough tiering? Isn't tiering something that people complain about all the time?

 

Yes, but tiering solves a major problem of games like these. Games like these tend to dissolve into hegemonies of some kind, with a political coalition being dominant and effectively calling the shots. Hegemonies themselves tend to be unstable, and eventually fall apart. Both of these phenomenon tend to create rather lopsided wars which aren't very thrilling for parties involved.

Tiering, on the other hand, creates the potential for local centers of power to overwhelm global centers of power. You can have regional hegemonies that completely control a tier, but beyond the basic tier control, they're rather impotent outside. In their specific tier, they might seek military relationships with alliances in their tier to consolidate their power, but outside their tier, their primary interest is economic, not military, because they can't really touch people outside their tier.

 

====

 

Another way to look at it is that tiering itself is a problem, and that alliances should be encouraged to have broad score ranges. The problem, however, is that ex-IQ alliances basically control the 18 City tier, and by controlling the 18 tier they also control the 14 and even 12 or 9 tiers. Likewise, their rivals control the 30+ tier and by doing so can control the 23 city tier, organically, and they also can control down to the 15 city tier through innovations in military tactics.

 

====


To summarize these two factors, either the updeclare / downdeclare together are broken, or the down-declare is broken. These merit two very different solutions.

 

====

 

In the first case, if we seek to make regional hegemonies more paramount, the trick would be to limit their interactions with alliances outside their tier. That would involve making cities comprise even more of their military score, i.e, pushing the city score modifier to 100 instead of its current 50. The current war range is roughly +50% cities and -50% cities,, with certain situations having created -67% cities last war, and +200% cities in Knightfall. Doubling the city score modifier would have pushed it closer to -33% cities and +50% cities, although updeclares would have been more difficult and expensive.

 

A different and more elegant way to fix it would simply be to cap downdeclare range based on city count (-25%, +75%). On the other hand, it would take out a lot of tactics wherein players modify their non-plane military percentages so as to either drop into score tiers wherein their side has control, or boost above the enemy's capability to launch updeclares.

 

====

 

In the second case, if we choose to abolish tiering altogether, a different way might be to make it so that Seb at City 40 can hit nations at City 10. The trick, however, would be to change the offensive and defensive slot system. Instead of having everyone always have 5 offensive slots and 3 defensive slots, the number of slots available would be based on the strength of opponents being engaged. That's to say, a player could only be engaged by 3x their score of defensive slots. This would make it so, that if downdeclares are attempted, the offensive potential of downdeclares would quickly be limited to 1-2 nations downdeclared upon, and updeclares could see 10 nations attacking a whale in apparent suicide waves that, nonetheless, end up attritioning whale planes to manageable levels.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal preference is to force tier consolidation for the obvious reason that TKR and NPO will never get along. People have tried, over and over again, but this game has essentially been not "Politics and War" but "TKR and NPO" since day one. Separating the two belligerents by putting them in different tiers allows them to keep hatef-ing endlessly, but without having to take the game down with them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a really simple and elegant solution to all of this: make cities be worth more NS. The city gap makes a larger score gap.

Easy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Inst said:

My personal preference is to force tier consolidation for the obvious reason that TKR and NPO will never get along. People have tried, over and over again, but this game has essentially been not "Politics and War" but "TKR and NPO" since day one. Separating the two belligerents by putting them in different tiers allows them to keep hatef-ing endlessly, but without having to take the game down with them.

ummm.. neither NPO or TKR existed on day one or day 300 for that matter.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Inst said:

My personal preference is to force tier consolidation for the obvious reason that TKR and NPO will never get along. People have tried, over and over again, but this game has essentially been not "Politics and War" but "TKR and NPO" since day one. Separating the two belligerents by putting them in different tiers allows them to keep hatef-ing endlessly, but without having to take the game down with them.

Silent War: NPO attacked TKR

Trail of Tiers: NPO attacked TKR

Knightfall: NPO attacked TKR

Dial up: NPO attacked TKR

They have a crush for us and you shouldn't intrude on other alliance's sentimental affairs

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2019 at 4:37 AM, Inst said:

Separating the two belligerents by putting them in different tiers allows them to keep hatef-ing endlessly, but without having to take the game down with them.

They're already in different tiers, and it's not helping. Your argument is invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NPO and TKR are both average City 18, incidentally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like we've been down this Trail before. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets take this down to the level of the average joe:

 

Make wars based on city count, dont know the numbers, but thats what @Alex is for

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.