Jump to content

Changes to score calculations -- Need input.


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Esentia said:

Really the only point of Score I can see is it limits who can a Player can Declare on.  Perhaps there is another reason for it, but if so I am not seeing it...

Cities and to a much lesser degree Projects are the only things which represent true static power.  Everything else can be  destroyed to compress score and then (other than military units) almost instantly rebuilt.  Your potential Military Capability is limited only by your number of cities.  So at a minimum Score should increase linearly with the number of cities.  Better would be the opposite of what you are suggesting.  A player with a large number of cities has a tremendous advantage in their rebuild.  So unless you make a bunch of other even more fundamental changes what you propose would simply be a gift to players 25+ range.

Current:   A 15 and 30 City player (A & B respectively)  have a base score of 750 and a 1500.   The 30 City player (B) can have no  Military... declare on the 15 City player (A) just before the update and do a 2x build.  The 2x build of B can give them 147% of A's MAX Infantry, 88% of their MAX Tanks/Ships,  73% of their MAX Planes since the Propaganda Project increases daily build but not Max build.

Proposed:   As above, but more extreme since the 30 City player (B) will only have a score of 800.  Half of that is 400 which would be an 8 City Player (A).  In this case the 2x build of Player B is just silly compared to the MAX units of Player A... 275% of Infantry, 165% of Tanks/Ships, and 138% of Planes.  Or they could still go after a 15 City Player, but without having to sell off all of their Military first.

In conclusion this is a potentially interesting idea if applied in reverse, but a terrible one if applied as suggested.  Unless the goal is to just directly benefit the high City Count nations.  So the "old" at the expense of the "new".  Exacerbated by Cities/Projects being the only thing which has a Timer so it is truly ties to how long a nation has existed.

I say just keep it the way it is, but if you do make a change why would you do it in such a way as to give a further advantage to those who are already powerful?

Torson

That's an incredibly reductive and therefore inaccurate way to view it. The proposal changes score only of cities. For most nations in the game, their score is primarily consisted of infrastructure and military. Your example requires none of both to even be relevant, which alone should be an indicator of how nonsensical what you're saying is.

It should also be mentioned, you're not even addressing the right line. The one Alex is actually considering put's a c30s score for cities at around ~1100. 

Why keep it the way it is? Because it benefits you? It certainly doesn't benefit the city 10s and 11s i've been building up who are now wondering what sort of black magic has resulted in city 20s with max planes and 2000 score declaring on them. It's so interesting that you're all so very concerned it might happen to you and claim your concern is in line with balance and game health, while simultaneously not giving a single shit about the fact that you're already doing it to people even less built up and even less glorified by age with wealth and cities than you are. 

One might even think, with such noble concerns, you might stop doing it. One would be wrong, because of course you and your leadership will simply shrug, say "tactics bro dont hate" and "lol all y'all can just sell down anyway haha it doesnt matter". As much as you people rag on about how whales are bad for the game, you completely miss that what you've been doing is even worse. In an amusingly ironic twist, you guys are actually complaining right now, that your enemy might take you up on your offer. I imagine it's because this time it actually poses a significant threat to you, rather than being some meager taunt you throw out. 

So frankly, as far as i'm concerned, even if it does lead to this doomsday scenario you spelled out, oh no? You have to get hit with your own sword, how awful? You might have to change strategies and actually fight toe-to-toe in your own tier, rather than flee to the lower tiers, how dreadful? No more roflstomping city 10s in groups of 3 c18s with your max planes and 1800 score, what a tragedy? You get the point here. 

You think you can come up with a better solution that stops you from doing what you're so afraid of happening to you, feel free to share. I don't have one myself currently, so the best horse for me to back is one that sees you get dosed with the same shit i do. 

And remember, the only reason this is a problem brought up at all, is specifically because you flee from your own tier, to hide in the low tiers, and roflstomp c10s with max planes while being immune to any real counter attack because there's a wall of like 350 of you all doing the same exact thing. If it would be wrong and not in the best interest of the game for whales to be capable of and do it to you, then you must understand, the same applies if you do it unto others.

Now, all of you, quit complaining you might have to face your own slayer, and come up with a better way that sees you avoiding that confrontation, and also stops your usage of the exact same thing, at a lower level.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Akuryo said:

That's an incredibly reductive and therefore inaccurate way to view it. The proposal changes score only of cities. For most nations in the game, their score is primarily consisted of infrastructure and military. Your example requires none of both to even be relevant, which alone should be an indicator of how nonsensical what you're saying is.

Infrastructure can be destroyed and instantly rebuilt.  Or not.  Since you only need Infra to build improvements not operate them there should be little expectation of Infra being meaningful to Score during a protracted War.  Things could be done to change this, but all would be even more significant shifts to game.

Military cannot be instantly rebuilt, but pretty close.  At most it takes 6 days to go from nothing to Max.

This is why when looking at a Nations "Core Score", by which I mean what cannot be easily and quickly manipulated up or down, the only components which are relevant are Cities and Projects.

I just picked one of the proposed lines.  It was to illustrate the example.  My point is that if a change is going to be made it would seem to be healthier for The Game to have it advantage Nations with <10 Cities and disadvantage those with 20+ rather than the other way around.  Why handicap the weaker player.  Again... overall I am in favor of just leaving it the linear way it is now... but if it is going to get curved then I feel the proposal from the OP goes the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2019 at 6:31 AM, Elijah Mikaelson said:
  • Infra adds way to much nation score, Cities simply do not add enough.

You sum it up quite succinctly.  Dropping Infra from the Score Calc completely would likely be better than a sliding scale for City Score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Akuryo said:

So frankly, as far as i'm concerned, even if it does lead to this doomsday scenario you spelled out, oh no? You have to get hit with your own sword, how awful? You might have to change strategies and actually fight toe-to-toe in your own tier, rather than flee to the lower tiers, how dreadful? No more roflstomping city 10s in groups of 3 c18s with your max planes and 1800 score, what a tragedy? You get the point here. 

Hmmm... what you are talking about is a Fantasy of your own creation... I have 18 Cities... my Declarations during this conflict have all been up... 20, 25, 22, 29, 22, 20, 20, etc... city nations.  I have been attacked by some smaller city count Nations, but that is hardly under my control.  So I do not know what you are smoking.

On the other hand... if what you said were true than it would support my contention about the value of Cities increasing not decreasing as he Count goes up.

Torson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about some real fun... a City Taken to 0 Infra is Destroyed and must be Rebuilt.  :)

Less brutal would be to apply the same type rule to destroyed infra as exists when selling infra.  If an attack takes your Allowed Improvements below you Current Improvements then random ones are destroyed until Current = Allowed.  No more almost fully combat effective nations with 300 Infra cities.

Crazy idea... Wars might actually END meaningfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so the fact that i am in a global war where we are fighting 1000 nations, and I am sitting with 34 cities, around 1100, 1200 infra per city, 3 days worth of soldiers 1 day of tanks and ships and full planes and have absolutely not a single nation in range, means the game is working as intended. 

My war right now is basically waiting around to get hit, because god forbid I can hit people that can hit me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

so the fact that i am in a global war where we are fighting 1000 nations, and I am sitting with 34 cities, around 1100, 1200 infra per city, 3 days worth of soldiers 1 day of tanks and ships and full planes and have absolutely not a single nation in range, means the game is working as intended. 

My war right now is basically waiting around to get hit, because god forbid I can hit people that can hit me.

Yet you drop those half those ships, half those tanks and half those men you would most likely be in the range and still be able to take ground control and blockade, but we both know that won't happen, you enjoy the safety of being out of range, just like GoB right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it would make down declares below 17 harder, would also make huge down declares on Cities above that easier. So past a certain point trying to avoid down declares from nations with nearly double your cities would be pointless. Would likely see alliances intentionally cap their cities below it, so would still be tier gaps for those who intentionally keep their city count low for raiding & make counters on nations below that city area harder.

So I feel like this might create as many problems or more than it attempts to solve.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

so the fact that i am in a global war where we are fighting 1000 nations, and I am sitting with 34 cities, around 1100, 1200 infra per city, 3 days worth of soldiers 1 day of tanks and ships and full planes and have absolutely not a single nation in range, means the game is working as intended. 

My war right now is basically waiting around to get hit, because god forbid I can hit people that can hit me.

There is Nations in range, but you chose to ally them or you already knocked them out of range. A city cap would be beneficial or you, since you'd only need to wait for the rest to catch up and you would have plenty of targets.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Esentia said:

Hmmm... what you are talking about is a Fantasy of your own creation... I have 18 Cities... my Declarations during this conflict have all been up... 20, 25, 22, 29, 22, 20, 20, etc... city nations.  I have been attacked by some smaller city count Nations, but that is hardly under my control.  So I do not know what you are smoking.

On the other hand... if what you said were true than it would support my contention about the value of Cities increasing not decreasing as he Count goes up.

Torson

No, it isn't a fantasy. Learn how statistics work. You as one individual out of hundreds my statement applies to, are irrelevant. You, one c18 says he hasn't done it, my entire alliance below c15 says plenty of you have. So do Arrgh and Empryea. So i couldn't less of a shit if you personally haven't, all that means is your milcom hasn't assigned you any.

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

There is Nations in range, but you chose to ally them or you already knocked them out of range. A city cap would be beneficial or you, since you'd only need to wait for the rest to catch up and you would have plenty of targets.

A city cap is stupid. 

The fact i chose to ally them is irrelevant. YOU chose not to ally whales. Or they chose not to ally you. Does this somehow now mean you deserve to be spared the treatment you give others? That should be treated differently despite it being the same situation for the same reasons? What a load of bullshit. YOU chose to solidfy you tiering. YOU chose not to make friends with and ally upper tiers. So it's YOUR fault if they can suddenly drop down and slaughter you like pigs. 

If it's our fault because we find your politics abhorrent and refuse to sign with them, then it's likewise your fault for not finding whale politics agreeable and signing them. Stop trying to spin it. There is no spin. It's literally the exact same thing, just a higher city count. Anything you say to try and spin it on us, on our problem in the lower tier, is just as applicable to you. 

So pick one. Either it's terrible no matter who does it and who receives it, and no matter if the choice is brought on by their treaty choices, or it's not. But if it's not, you all need to drop it, and just pray the whales don't feel like going to the effort. And if it is, then you need to reflect on your own actions, and ask if it's really so right for you to be 'championing' this while you partake of it.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

No, it isn't a fantasy. Learn how statistics work. You as one individual out of hundreds my statement applies to, are irrelevant. You, one c18 says he hasn't done it, my entire alliance below c15 says plenty of you have. So do Arrgh and Empryea. So i couldn't less of a shit if you personally haven't, all that means is your milcom hasn't assigned you any.

Wow....  sounds like the Raeiska Alliance (or North Point?) has been getting pasted and you are just a little unhappy about that.  We all are playing under the same Rules.  As a Rose Protectorate you cannot claim not to have had experienced mentorship.  If you are getting steamrollered then I would look in the mirror.  Oh.  Sorry.  I should use the proper term...  "roflstomped" I believe it was? 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when people bought their city counts really high, they did it knowing they were growing out of range of others. I don’t think any game changes should be made just to benefit a side if that’s why City 17 is where it really starts dropping fast.

Could have the first 5 Cities worth twice the NS without the continued deterioration in how much score if gives if its the lower tier which is the focus. Also could maybe reduce how much NS infra gives if suddenly changing the formula if we want more people in range of each other, since the infra itself doesn’t effect war much beyond keeping it above the minimum population to max your troops. Although already I think the cities themselves don’t make as much difference as the increased military; so not sure why it needs fixing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

Yet you drop those half those ships, half those tanks and half those men you would most likely be in the range and still be able to take ground control and blockade, but we both know that won't happen, you enjoy the safety of being out of range, just like GoB right now.

cool story dude with 25 cities, and a score under 2k.  and I did manage to find someone that drifted too close to the sun, I only had to drop all my tanks, all my ships, and a bunch of planes to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
3 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

cool story dude with 25 cities, and a score under 2k.  and I did manage to find someone that drifted too close to the sun, I only had to drop all my tanks, all my ships, and a bunch of planes to do it.

cool story Mr 34 cities and close to max troops, tanks, planes and ships, I am glad you was able to find someone, but have no fear wont be long before we find you :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Find me? I have been sitting around waiting, one of us is hiding, one of us is not.  And its nice to know having 20% tanks and 20% ships is close to max tanks and ships.  Don't let those pesky facts get in the way of your story tho.

*snork* !!!  I seem to remember being in a War with you last time or the time before.  Your rebuy is daunting.  Kind of like China birthing a Canada each year.  :)

I do have a question for His Sweetness....  did the War Count reset at some point or have you truly been involved in <100 Wars in almost 5 years?

Founded: 08/05/2014 (1,806 Days Old)
Wars Won: 60
Wars Lost: 35

If those numbers are right then that is an Achievement in and of itself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The counter did not start on day one of the game, it kicked in like 2-3 years after we started.  What are you trying to imply tho? that someone that has won/lost 95 wars and is number 4 in most nukes eaten is a infra hugger or a war dodger?   That counter also only counts wars won/lost, not wars that expired.

I find it interesting that you would call out someone that has fought in more wars during this conflict than you have, and you dont have the built in excuse that you dont have anyone to attack.

Also interesting... if you look at NPO's warstats, which goes back to 10-20-18, I have also fought in 99 wars vs your 83 wars, and at a considerably higher expense to myself.

Facts are tough tho, You and Eli should keep working on it, you will find something to really zing me with eventually.

Also since you wrote this:

Current:   A 15 and 30 City player (A & B respectively)  have a base score of 750 and a 1500.   The 30 City player (B) can have no  Military... declare on the 15 City player (A) just before the update and do a 2x build.  The 2x build of B can give them 147% of A's MAX Infantry, 88% of their MAX Tanks/Ships,  73% of their MAX Planes since the Propaganda Project increases daily build but not Max build.

The 30 city nation cannot declare war on the 15 city nation because a nation with 1500 ns cannot attack a nation with 750 ns.

you also said this " Exacerbated by Cities/Projects being the only thing which has a Timer so it is truly ties to how long a nation has existed. 

This would be true if 30 city nations could build/ afford to buy new cities at the same pace as a 15 city nation, which it cannot even come close to doing, except under extraordinary circumstances.  It should take a 15 city nation what around 20 days to buy a new city?  It takes me between 45-60 days to afford a new city.

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was not a trying to slam you or call you a War Dodger since that is so clearly not the case in the time I have been playing .  It was just weird to see the Count so low since your Nation was so old.  Bizarre for Alex not to have a stat to track "Wars Expired".  I am guessing at the time he thought it would be a rare occurrence.

You make a good point about the specific 10 day City Timer becoming irrelevant fairly soon.   I think it was even upped from the 5 it used to be.  Even so though, if an Alliance decided it want to build up a new Nation to 30 cities there is a minimum amount of time to do so even with "infinite resources" thrown at it.  And do not get me wrong, IMHO this is a good thing.  The increasing cost of cities also definitely makes it way harder to build more so it is not like it is an "Old Boys" club no one else can join. 

What I had been talking about with regards to the Timer was more that Cities and Projects are the things you cannot get rid of and then instantly rebuild.   Does not look like you even CAN destroy a City like you can a Project.  What I was talking about was what your "Core Score" is.  And I was making the assumption (wrongly it seems) that players would not Destroy a Project to compress score.  Even doing so though they cannot them immediately rebuild it.

Calling you "His Sweetness" was meant as a nod to the joke I presumed you were making with all the extra e's in your name.  If you are sensitive about that then I apologize,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The timer has been 10 days since the reset 1800 something days ago.  Most of the changes sheeps makes are to make it easier for little nations to grow.  including the infra purchase scale, the daily bonuses, removing the timer for the first 10 cities. 

God forbid, he changes the score ranges to help the upper tiers actually be able to fight, since the  current meta is to abuse the score declaration range, and have everyone hide below the declaration range of larger nations and slowly attempt to pick people off.

You can destroy projects, I destroyed 3 of my projects to hit ripper in the "fake" war we fought against chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

The timer has been 10 days since the reset 1800 something days ago.  Most of the changes sheeps makes are to make it easier for little nations to grow.  including the infra purchase scale, the daily bonuses, removing the timer for the first 10 cities. 

God forbid, he changes the score ranges to help the upper tiers actually be able to fight, since the  current meta is to abuse the score declaration range, and have everyone hide below the declaration range of larger nations and slowly attempt to pick people off.

You can destroy projects, I destroyed 3 of my projects to hit ripper in the "fake" war we fought against chaos.

Cities don’t give much NS anyways though. How many cities down can you already declare if everything other than city count is the same?

I think if he does this he should increase the destructive power of nukes, so nations down declared where fighting conventionally is pointless can still hurt those massive city advantage nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Cities don’t give much NS anyways though. How many cities down can you already declare if everything other than city count is the same?

I think if he does this he should increase the destructive power of nukes, so nations down declared where fighting conventionally is pointless can still hurt those massive city advantage nations.

You understand city score is on average like 20-30% of a nation at typical peacetime levels, no? My cities are ~1000 score and at peace I'd be hovering at around 3500 total. At max military I could hit around ~5000ish score, meaning cities are still 20% of my score.

So yes, they do add alot if score. On average about 20% of it to even a fully militarized nation.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I think if he does this he should increase the destructive power of nukes, so nations down declared where fighting conventionally is pointless can still hurt those massive city advantage nations.

It would likely have all kinds of horrible unintended side effects, but increasing the power of Nukes would make them more interesting  At the moment they are just a big missile.   I have eaten a dozen or so and launched a couple... they are not memorable.  As it seems like they should be.  It would be kind of interesting if Nukes were something people were hesitant to use at the risk of them being used back.

What if a Nuke took a city to 0 Infra and destroyed all improvements in it?  Someone also made a suggestion about having a special improvement to house Nukes.  Heck... would just be a new Military Building in many ways.  This would allow for a "First Strike" type action.  If you have three Nukes and only three silos then your Nukes are at risk just like having a Hanger blown up when at full aircraft.  So you would want to have more Silos than Nukes.  Just a thought.  At the moment tossing a Nuke off it pretty meaningless in many situations.  Back when an opponent had 3000+ Infra it could be pretty satisfying, but even then it was hardly devastating.

I think it might be interesting overall if there were an "Oh Shit.  Things just went Nuclear" moment when someone in a given conflict launched the first Nuke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Esentia said:

It would likely have all kinds of horrible unintended side effects, but increasing the power of Nukes would make them more interesting  At the moment they are just a big missile.   I have eaten a dozen or so and launched a couple... they are not memorable.  As it seems like they should be.  It would be kind of interesting if Nukes were something people were hesitant to use at the risk of them being used back.

What if a Nuke took a city to 0 Infra and destroyed all improvements in it?  Someone also made a suggestion about having a special improvement to house Nukes.  Heck... would just be a new Military Building in many ways.  This would allow for a "First Strike" type action.  If you have three Nukes and only three silos then your Nukes are at risk just like having a Hanger blown up when at full aircraft.  So you would want to have more Silos than Nukes.  Just a thought.  At the moment tossing a Nuke off it pretty meaningless in many situations.  Back when an opponent had 3000+ Infra it could be pretty satisfying, but even then it was hardly devastating.

I think it might be interesting overall if there were an "Oh Shit.  Things just went Nuclear" moment when someone in a given conflict launched the first Nuke.

Yeah that moment would never happen. No one would care. They'd get slung freely just like they do now. Infact it'd be even moreso because they'd be so much stronger.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Cities don’t give much NS anyways though. How many cities down can you already declare if everything other than city count is the same?

I think if he does this he should increase the destructive power of nukes, so nations down declared where fighting conventionally is pointless can still hurt those massive city advantage nations.

Can you take like 3 mins to do some research before you post dumb things you could have checked for yourself?  In case you were wondering my 34 cities make up 1650 NS.  If you make Nukes more powerful, you are actually doing whales a favor, by making it easier for us to shed infra NS.  Personally, I find eating nukes during a war generally helps me out.

  • Haha 1
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.