Jump to content

Changing Nation Score Formula to Tighten War Ranges Based on Military Capacity


Alex
 Share

Nation Score Formula Change (Cities 50 Score -> 200 Score Each)  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. After reading the topic, do you support this change to reduce unfair wars?

    • Yes
      16
    • No, leave it as is
      19
    • No, change it but not like this (I'll post a comment)
      6


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

A frequent complaint I get is about unfair wars in which a nation with many more cities is able to down-declare on a nation with far fewer cities. The reason that this is possible is because of a "gaming" of the score system, wherein a larger city nation can sell down its military and infrastructure to declare on a much lower city count nation that has a lot of infrastructure and military.

When it comes to wars, arguably the most important factor is not infrastructure or military, but military capacity, being the ability to create new units and the maximum amount of units a nation can have. This is directly linked to a nation's city count.

Therefore, to make war ranges more fair, it would be beneficial to make the amount of score that Cities add greater.

I've prepared a spreadsheet in which I've calculated the estimated score of a nation and the maximum potential downdeclare by military capacity. That is, assuming a nation which has sold most of its infrastructure and military to declare on a nation with max military and average infrastructure.

The result is that in the current system, at generally every city level that maximum potential downdeclare has a 100% greater military capacity than the target. I.E, a 40 city nation can declare war on a 20 city nation. A 20 city nation can declare war on a 10 city nation. I imagine most of you, and myself, agree that this is fundamentally unfair for the nation being declared on.

I am proposing that the nation score formula be changed so that Cities (after the first city) add 200 score, instead of the current 50 score.

This change would make it so that the maximum downdeclare military capacity advantage is 45% (a 29 city nation down-declaring on a 20 city nation.) With the average excess military capacity being 36% and the median being 40%. (Note that these are the extremes, and not what happens in typical gameplay. In the current system, the maximum military capacity advantage is 100% [twice the military capacity], the average is 91%, and the median is 98%.)

Additionally, I am proposing a base score of +10 be added for everyone. This will help reduce the ability of nations to hide at 0 score to protect alliance banks and such.

While these changes may not be perfect, they are relatively subtle changes that should improve gameplay significantly without changing it drastically.

Before I go ahead and implement this, however, I am looking for some feedback, as it is a significant change that will impact everyone.

Max Down Declare Calcs.xlsx

  • Upvote 4

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

I've seen some calls for less extreme of a change.

If you'd support a change to City Score from 50 -> 150 but not from 50 -> 200, then please like this post so I can gauge support for that instead.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

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

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

I've seen some calls for less extreme of a change.

If you'd support a change to City Score from 50 -> 150 but not from 50 -> 200, then please like this post so I can gauge support for that instead.

50 --> 100 is the largest change I'd support. Why not refactor score in general?

  • Upvote 4

unknown_3_1_65.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson

I would like to see Cities with the highest NS, followed by military (with a cap on nukes and missiles), followed by infra, followed by land, followed by projects

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This increase in score based on cities would actually appear to worsen the problem that we saw last war - where the higher city count whales were being sat on by numerically superior lower tier nations with literally no chance of escape.

Casualties, cost of units, and daily purchase limits need to be revisited before score ranges imo.

 

I'd *like* to see cities count for more (like 75-100 score per city), but without additional changes put in place it would pointlessly worsen problems we already see.

 

I feel like the complaints are really just people being raided who can't find counters quick enough to help them since it's been proven multiple times that multiple nations can beat a higher tier opponent just with coordination.

Edited by Roberts
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for refactoring the score formula, but don't reward players who inflate their scores incredibly with obscene amounts of infra, tanks, and ships (nukes, missiles, for some), let those people continue to be in downdeclare range of people who can easily overwhelm them with superior military capacity. These people who don't understand score inflation are probably some of your biggest proponents for this change, and you would just be rewarding their ignorance instead of allowing them to be taught by failure in being absolutely destroyed by downdeclares.

Agree with Akuryo and agree with Changeup.

Edited by Aether
  • Upvote 3

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Roberts said:

This increase in score based on cities would actually appear to worsen the problem that we saw last war - where the higher city count whales were being sat on by numerically superior lower tier nations with literally no chance of escape.

......

I feel like the complaints are really just people being raided who can't find counters quick enough to help them since it's been proven multiple times that multiple nations can beat a higher tier opponent just with coordination.

This. If you join a decent alliance, you should have people willing to counter for you. Also, this nerfs raiders severely because not only will it be harder to find targets, but it will be harder to overcome or ignore counters.

For example, right now, I am at 21 cities. I am currently being countered by a c10 and a c13. I can beat neither because they are at close to max soldiers/planes and I can't even double buy enough military to beat them both, or even one before my military is killed again.

forumsig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea, I dont think the issue is the mechanics or whales down declaring. tbh, any dedicated group of 20 city nations could kill 30+ city ppl. and I like how the current war system rewards good fighters. Like, even if you get taken down, you can still fight back with soldiers and win alot of wars against incompetent people.  This is another "I suck at war, so nerf the good players" update. Part of why wars used to end quickly is because everyone knows once it gets down to a soldiers only side vs a maxed plane side, the soldiers only group will do more net damage. This update erases that, allowing groups to pin whole sides of the game more effectively, with no incentive for peace

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Roberts said:

I feel like the complaints are really just people being raided who can't find counters quick enough to help them since it's been proven multiple times that multiple nations can beat a higher tier opponent just with coordination.

This.
 

Alterations to the score range will exacerbate existing problems with the war system; the actual effect will be the opposite of the intended purpose.

a) it increases the likelihood that heavy tiering (e.g. NPO) becomes untouchable; if there is a more limited range of nations which can declare on say an alliance with a heavy concentration at City 19/20 it hands an unassailable advantage to said alliance

b) anything which dramatically increases whale score relative to smaller city nations will push the whales further out of range for the majority

Neither of the above are healthy for the game.

 

If you want to address the issues with the war system there are far better ways to go about doing it. Namely introducing some sort of counter to the advantage planes have (and no the alum. cost increase didn't address this at all; it simply made it more expensive to attempt to counter a plane advantage). For example: introducing an Anti-Aircraft artillery unit with a similar function to tanks (e.g. similar cost but anti-air instead of anti-ground) would go a long way to addressing the current issues with the war system.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and to echo Akuryo, fixing beige should be the focus. Imagine how much fun war would be if you didn't have to beige cycle to win the war! Having to teach new players to lose wars really isn't great for the games retention rate, making war less fun and more of a chore. Not to mention the moderation time Alex has to spend finding slot fillers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this may be worth considering if you go through with the change that planes and all units will take 3 days to max, because then having higher daily rebuys will be an actual advantage in a fight due to just the pure fact of having cities. But I think atm you are misinterpreting the core of the issue.

The c20 can easily beat a c40 under the right conditions, most extremely with the c40 being zeroed and the c20 being max military. The point is: it isnt the having cities thats too strong, it would be the standing max military of a c40 that would be too strong. So what really needs balancing is the relative score of 2 nations in that max military state. By max military I mean whatever build the nation is running, so max military could be planes only or it could be max of everything.

The unfair situation arises when the c20 has a lot of tanks/ships while the c40 runs only planes and soldiers, because only under these conditions is the c40 actually able to downdeclare due to the c20s inflated score caused by tank/ship-ownership. This is the state that really needs the addressing. You look at the c40 and c20 at their max military state and think about what it is about the c20s military that puts them in range and maybe change something there. I think the logical thing to consider here is to lower the amount of score given by tanks and ships as they contribute little to the defense and maybe shouldn't push the c20 into range of the c40. However, changing the amount of score given by cities is the false thing to address as you are also changing the score of nations with for example zeroed military, worsening an already bad state to be in.

Actually increasing the score of cities would imo only be correct if the pure ownership of cities is too strong. I don't think the cities are too strong if its the quantity of military they can have that's strong because this is useless without having that military. So decreasing score given by tanks/ships/missiles/nukes imo would be the way to go instead.

Edited by Dryad
  • Upvote 2

Biggest-Bloc-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dryad said:

I think this may be worth considering if you go through with the change that planes and all units will take 3 days to max, because then having higher daily rebuys will be an actual advantage in a fight due to just the pure fact of having cities. But I think atm you are misinterpreting the core of the issue.

The c20 can easily beat a c40 under the right conditions, most extremely with the c40 being zeroed and the c20 being max military. The point is: it isnt the having cities thats too strong, it would be the standing max military of a c40 that would be too strong. So what really needs balancing is the relative score of 2 nations in that max military state. By max military I mean whatever build the nation is running, so max military could be planes only or it could be max of everything.

The unfair situation arises when the c20 has a lot of tanks/ships while the c40 runs only planes and soldiers, because only under these conditions is the c40 actually able to downdeclare due to the c20s inflated score caused by tank/ship-ownership. This is the state that really needs the addressing. You look at the c40 and c20 at their max military state and think about what it is about the c20s military that puts them in range and maybe change something there. I think the logical thing to consider here is to lower the amount of score given by tanks and ships as they contribute little to the defense and maybe shouldn't push the c20 into range of the c40. However, changing the amount of score given by cities is the false thing to address as you are also changing the score of nations with for example zeroed military, worsening an already bad state to be in.

Actually increasing the score of cities would imo only be correct if the pure ownership of cities is too strong. I don't think the cities are too strong if its the quantity of military they can have that's strong because this is useless without having that military. So decreasing score given by tanks/ships/missiles/nukes imo would be the way to go instead.

I 100% agree, Especially the part of units taking 3 days to max, not only would this kind of be a solution for this, but there would be many other pros such as wars lasting shorter due to the increase of usage in refined.

Edited by Vein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
  • Administrators

After further consideration, I think that raising the score from 50 to 100 would be sufficient.

Please now see

for further discussion and gauge of support.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.