Jump to content
Prefontaine

Changes to score calculations -- Need input.

Recommended Posts

Also upvoting or downvoting this thread is pointless. 

Giving replies is what's needed. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Also upvoting or downvoting this thread is pointless. 

Giving replies is what's needed. 

I'm working on it :p.

The city change seems like a fair enough change. I'd say put it out on the test server to see how it plays out.


For military NS, it depends on the unit you're talking about. Due to the sheer versatility and efficacy of aircraft, I do think that the NS needs to be increased (basically doubled). As for tanks and ships, I'd rather see them have more utility than the one they do at the moment, which I think would be preferable to an NS reduction.

Infra and project sliding seems unnecessary to me. 1500 base infra is not really necessary for military either. It's the minimum barebones econ setup, but not the mil one.

Nuke and missile sliding is also not something I see as being necessary, because the substantial upkeep expense from a large stockpile already deters most people from piling up any appreciable amount.

Obviously, bullet points 2 through 5 should only be tested after seeing how the city NS changes affect the overall ranges.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is objectively political change. There are various changes to resistance/war length that would be far more beneficial. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Scratches head as he commits political suicide*

This isn't that bad, i'm fond of it on paper. But most wars are devolving into mid tier vs. upper tier, we need to resolve that first before expanding whale war ranges. Seems like a recipe for disaster (I can already do 14 city Down decs from 22...sphinx did a 27 city down declare...kek). Regarding just the lower tier impact tho, all for it. It might encourage newer alliances to tier and spark some interesting conflicts if mid-tier alliances allow them more freedom to fight (Which we have been seeing since August last year).

RE: Perhaps just increasing City score to 100 would achieve something similar at least politically.

Edited by Epi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 34 city nation definitely shouldn't be a le to hit a 20 city nation. So on that i agree. Should be a cap with the war ranges. Like an ns rating as well as no nation can hit lower than 5 cities below itself but can up declare 10 cities or something.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mack g said:

A 34 city nation definitely shouldn't be a le to hit a 20 city nation. So on that i agree. Should be a cap with the war ranges. Like an ns rating as well as no nation can hit lower than 5 cities below itself but can up declare 10 cities or something.

Ideas of having capped score ranges based on city counts has been discussed in the past and was very unpopular then. Make it something like if you have 30 cities you can never declare on someone with 19 cities of fewer, something to that effect. If the outlook on that has changed, I think it's a decent safeguard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 - 6 cities down should be the cap. Otherwise the double buy is retarded. The idea that a 20 city can down declare a 10 city nation and there is no way that a 1 vs 1 the 10 city can win. Is poor game design. 6 city down dec cap for the win

Edited by Mack g
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Thoughts on the city aspect?
    Well, I think you need to go a step further really,  during this war, Sphinx was able to hit someone with 19 cities, Sphinx has what 37 cities, Ripper with max planes, ships, tanks and troops on 34 cities was able to hit someone with 20 cities, no troops, no tanks and not ships and half the number of planes of Ripper almost.

    Cities are the biggest advantage within war if you take away the number of nations one side has over the other, So you have to come up with a better idea that enables people to declare on those within a city range.
     
  • I also want to hear what parts of score you think need adjusting? Should military impact be changed? If so what? Planes need to increase more strength? tanks less? Navy more? soldiers less? Etc.. 

    Infra is the biggest issue for nation score, someone with 1k infra can buy as much military as someone with 3k infra however infra adds a hell of a lot to nation score this is most likely the biggest issue that needs sorting.

     
  • Should infra be brought onto a sliding scale? the first 1500 infra is much more important on your military fielding capacity than the next 1500?

    Infra should add some nation score but it should drop off and add less the more you get, As said infra is more of a peacetime thing, where nation score doesn't really matter.
     
  • Should nukes/missiles be on a sliding scale? Having 0 nukes is much different than having 50, how different is having 50 from 100? Or 100 to 200?

    Nukes should yes however, you should also for once fix the fact that no nation with 14 cities 20k infra can hold 1k nukes, this is just dumb, need to fix it where you have to have an improvement within each city that can hold a nuke, and it will limit the number of nukes you can have,
     
  • Should some projects come with a score increase?
    Yes, all military projects should increase nation score.

    In closing, the nation score as its worked out today is laughable, Cities and military should be the two biggest part of nation score.

    Let's look at Joe Baker the largest nation within the game who seems to have max military also.
    38 cities. this is 17.1% (1850 NS) so his cities account for 17% of his score, something he cannot lose ever?
    127,300 infra and it makes up 29.4% (3182.5 NS) of his nation score, almost a 1/3 and he can not buy more planes, ships and what have you than anyone else at 38 cities with 1k infra, all he has is a better income. Also might add easy lost as well. 
    Projects 2.59% (280 NS) enables him to buy extra troops, nukes, missiles as well as protect himself and get extra spies.
    Military  50.9% (5510 NS) 570k men, 47.5k tanks 3420 planes and 570 ships, are you telling me that this huge as military (that I might add is only capable due to his large city count) is only 5510 Nation score, Hell his military on their own is almost top 50 nation.

    But let's say he drops the infra down to 1k, drops hit troops and tanks then Joe would drop from 10.8k NS to about 6k NS core hitting those on 20 to 25 cities who have more than 2k infra, just how sphinx and Ripper were able to do.

    Infra adds way to much nation score, Cities simply do not add enough.

    Now i know i have those who love to troll me, tag me and such but for once think of the bigger picture of the game and not if it will help you win an easy war or not

     
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically your trying to swap tech for cities. In another nationn sim most of us are familiar with... Theres a tech gap. A 50k tech whale nation cant be targeted by anyone outside of the top 250. So the whales stay above the world in a small % of players who can actually be targeted and the rest can only look from the bottom of the mountain. the whales can down dec people completely out of ther league.

However, with a city down dec cap and erasing the up dec... Those large nations can be targeted by anyone but can only down dec 5 - 6 cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.. down dec should be between 6 and 10 cities with a hard cap.

A 20 city nation for example cannot down dec a 10 city nation as it would have 100% more cities than the 10... Instead could only down dec a 14.

However a 30 city could down dec a 20 city nation as the 30 only has a 1/3rd of the city count as the 20, and its capped at 10. So a 40 could down dec a 30, a 50 could down dec a 40 and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

No, that 700 have been able to fight 1400 and whale tier is (relatively) unscathed, is a testament to the ineptitude of said 1400. Especially given context that's being deliberately omitted to drive the narrative. A solid 40% of Coalition A's forces were at half strength at best, yet that contingent managed to bring down one of the heaviest hitters of Coalition B on the outset of the blitz, alongside busying up it's partner. The alliances that came on the days that followed the blitz came in piecemeal, which resulted in them being picked of; that is the real reason why they were ineffectual. It was a strategic mishandling of assets from Coalition B, not the overpowering capabilities of the upper tier in Coalition A.

The fact that this strategy has existed for 3 years now, it can only be used by the side with more nations, and that there has never been a major increase in its effectiveness proves that the strategy is as effective as it can be. Also, the strategy is not a winning one, it's to force a white peace. The strategy also wasn't full used in KF as there was a 8:1 nation advantage, so Several whale aa's went in at full military. Thus, historically, this strategy can only produce a white peace at best. The current war there is a bit over a 2:1 nation advantage and half of the outnumbered coalition went in at half military. If the strategy is as effective as you make it out to be why didn't your coalition attempt it? Because it's a strategy that isn't easy to do and requires the resources and morale to take constant beatings for the sake of the coalition of the whole. As evidenced by many nations in your coalition constantly floating score higher and higher, essentially abandoning the war effort, it is not an easy thing to do.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your goal is to help widen the war ranges in the lower tiers where you claim these changes will have the most effect, then simply increase the value of cities in the score formula.

 

This change is overly complicating things and, as others mentioned, would cause a new problem in the upper tier.

 

Increase score for cities flatly and everyone's ranges will widen out.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Malal said:

The fact that 1400 nations have been fighting 700 for a month and the whale tier in the latter has yet to really be touched shows how difficult it is to actually fight large nations currently.

Intentionally hiding in the lower tier and not building military other than planes as a strategy is, surprise surprise, going to make it difficult to take out larger nations. Blaming the game mechanics for strategic choices of your side is a bit ridiculous.

Your side possessed the upper tier to take us on but chose not to risk it. Its not an indicator of an issue with the game its an indicator of an issue with your strategy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malal said:

The fact that this strategy has existed for 3 years now, it can only be used by the side with more nations, and that there has never been a major increase in its effectiveness proves that the strategy is as effective as it can be.

What? It's the opposite. The strategy has only gained momentum, as the city gap of those employing it narrowed down when relative to that of their opposition. Simply take a look at the outcomes of GGF/ToT and AC. I do agree that KF is an apple to oranges comparison due to the extreme lopsided nature of that conflict, hence I'll clarify that now so I don't have to reiterate on it later. At any rate, the different outcomes on the two former conflicts, in part it was due to the match ups of the non-IQ alliances in each war. However, it was also due to the jump on average city counts with NPO in particular, IQ in general. 
 

Quote

Also, the strategy is not a winning one, it's to force a white peace.

The bravado indicates intentions that contradict that notion.
 

Quote

If the strategy is as effective as you make it out to be why didn't your coalition attempt it? Because it's a strategy that isn't easy to do and requires the resources and morale to take constant beatings for the sake of the coalition of the whole.

Do I actually need to spell it out letter by letter? Fine. The reason Coalition A didn't do it is simply because (aside from the limitations which I highlighted, but you promptly ignored) it's a raw numbers game when it comes down to aircraft (the nation counts grow quite exponentially in the lower tiers for Coalition B side). Furthermore, there was another mechanical limitation, in the form of offensive wars slots. Yes, TGH, KT and many others were constantly sitting on 5/5 offensives early in the war. No, I'm not asking to have it changed, but merely pointing out that it was a thing.

And I think that you're overestimating the effort it takes. Infra gets burned sooner or later, not to mention the wholesales that were done. Resource management is a thing. Simply take a look at 69. Morale I'm more inclined to agree as being an actual concern on that strategy. However, there's a difference between taking a beating or one or two rounds, and then submarining, and that of getting dragged and spending a couple of months down in Vietnam. Some people love it and ask for seconds, but it isn't exactly the majority's cup of tea.
 

Quote

As evidenced by many nations in your coalition constantly floating score higher and higher, essentially abandoning the war effort, it is not an easy thing to do.

Read above. In fact, it'll also need acknowledgement on the limitations on downdeclares given the current situation, but I won't hold my breath in that regard.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea.... 30 city nations cannot hit 20 cities nations easily. At 28 cities, I was able to hit a 20 and an 18 which both had full mil. All my other wars are within +/-5 cities of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cities are way to low in score value. i also think some military is to high in score, but that may just be there relative value and i would think it would be better to raise other values and reevaluate before making to many changes at once. projects are also defiantly to low value and i could see an argument that not all projects should have the same value.

there is also the issue of land. it cant be destroyed and adds nothing to score. with the new projects adding major food demand and food production going to 0 in major global wars it makes land an even better investment. in peace times it lets you grow even more food, which can either sustain you through a war or be sold at massive profits. im not sure what, if anything, should be done with land but i would be remiss not to mention it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, Malal said:

The fact that this strategy has existed for 3 years now, it can only be used by the side with more nations, and that there has never been a major increase in its effectiveness proves that the strategy is as effective as it can be.

Lol no. Don't even know where to start with this one hahahaha.

To the point of the thread? I think cities should count a bit more for NS calculations and troops a bit less. The real problem with the way ns is calculated presently, in my opinion, is that you can declare and then double buy over update, which leads to silliness. It might even make sense to count unbought troop capacity as NS if the player is below max on that troop type, thinking about it.

Edit: but honestly, I'm averse to changes at all. Admin is weak, and tends to make them half cocked in accordance with who whines the most, and I'd sooner have that sorted out in the meta.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planes really don't need adjusting. They are only powerful if you have a large Nations advantage, even then GC makes it tough and they are also the only unit realistically to take down whales. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Suggestion offering a solution to a balance issue, based on mathematically grounded logic
>the predictable happens

See the downvotes on the OP to see what I mean.

Anyway, when it comes right down to it, changing score range is just another way to fix the more fundamental balance issue, which is the possibility to "win" a perpetual game. We cannot, EVER, allow perpetual games to be won, because if they are then they're no longer perpetual and indeed have ended. Thus, the only real change that needs to happen is all wars result in beige. That'll deal with the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Giving replies is what's needed. 

Ask Sheepy to not damage the game again with a change like this. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.