Jump to content
Alex

Round 2: Changing Nation Score Formula to Tighten War Ranges Based on Military Capacity

Nation Score Formula Change (Cities 50 Score -> 100 Score Each)  

77 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

After further consideration, I think that changing the score from 50 per city to 100 per city would be sufficient at reducing the extreme range of city counts in downdeclares as it presently exists.

There's more information in this (now locked) topic:

Please use the poll to indicate your favor or disfavor with this suggestion. Thank you.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where "EMP" is "excess military capacity", the difference between a larger nation declaring on a smaller nation in size of maximum military, I have calculated the ranges at each city count in the current and proposed system.

An example of this is that in the current system, a 20 city nation can declare on a 10 city nation. Because cities ultimately determine how many military improvements you can have, and thus your military capacity, the "EMP" in this case is 100%. That is, the nation with 20 cities can field 2x as much military as the nation with 10 cities.

For cities 1 - 40 I have calculated the max EMP possible in the current system, as well as the proposed change.

Assuming 1,000 infra per city, in the current system we have:

image.png

In the proposed system we would have:

image.png

So, for example, in the proposed system, a 20 city nation could only down-declare on a nation with 12 cities (instead of 10 in the proposed system.)

 

If we assume 2,000 infra per city, in the current system we have:

image.png

And in the proposed system we would have:

image.png

 

In effect, this reduces the possibility of unfair fights which are a frequent complaint of mine, wherein players face insurmountable odds fighting nations that can have twice the military size that they do. Therefore, this slight change to the formula will re-balance war ranges more fairly.

image.png

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muh downdeclares T^T

No but seriously, the math shows that this would do a lot of good, particularly for the newer players that otherwise are on the butt end of the downdeclare meta. I (selfishly) approve.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think it should be more gradual. Something like 50 for c1-c3, 75 for c4-c10, and 100 after c10. This allows low tier raiding.

That said, still a big improvement!

Edited by Changeup
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Please take a moment to consider some of the suggestions in the first thread too :)

edit: Upon further consideration, I actually voted no for this change. I think a major military update is needed, while this is a part of that needed update I think releasing things piecemeal will do more harm to the meta than good.

 

I hope you can understand that I am voting as a player, not simply a raider. I believe the score formula needs to be changed, including raising the score value of cities, but I don't feel like changing the score formula without the requisite other changes will have a net negative impact on the vast majority of game experiences.

Edited by Roberts
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think this change will be even more valuable in conjunction with the ability to buy 1/3 of one's max military per day (assuming that is still being implemented), so overall good stuff here.

Edited by Aether
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'd get better feedback if you let players know what other military changes are in the works that were already discussed or agreed upon or whatever, as that seems to keep coming up. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently just had one of my members (9 cities) get declared on by someone with 22 cities so anything to stop stuff like that would be lovely.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not let the older members, who are the more active ones on the forums, discourage you. This is a good change that should happen

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teach the newbies better in the tutorial, so they dont end up inflating their score and getting down declared by a nation two fold there cities,
If a 10 city nation gets declared by a 19 city such as myselves its because of their own retardness.

Moreover if the score change is just because of "stop wrecking small nations" bring perks and changes to the war system that allows you to play "strategically" rather then "numerically".
The only positive feedbacks you will get is from the farming group of this game that represents the majority of this game, It would be better if you ask for the changes from the minority group too, and this minority group is playing a very vital part in letting this game live uptil now.... this isnt a bluff, it's a reality.

Its a "NO" from me.

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we changing the declaration range so that I can hit everyone that can hit me?  if that is the case, then i dont have an issue with this change, but if not, then this change just makes it even more difficult for me to hit people and lets even more people attack me without being able to defend myself.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Ragnarok8085 said:

Recently just had one of my members (9 cities) get declared on by someone with 22 cities so anything to stop stuff like that would be lovely.

Gosh, the guys who attacked him are almost zeroed. Not sure why you’re complaining here, if that 9 cities dude was active and in a competent alliance (which is definitely not the case), he could so easily win.

All you do is finding stupid excuses to complain because you s*** so bad. All you want is to nerf raiding because of your inability to properly run an alliance due to your incompetency. You’re pathetic 

Edited by Pascal
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Alex not are you only nerfing raiders here, you're nerfing whales in general *looks at grumpy* , if this happens then i'd like to demand my money back and go down to a certain city tier (c20) and just bully whales with my other 20 city friends.

Edited by Vein
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Viselli said:

Do not let the older members, who are the more active ones on the forums, discourage you.

You mean the older members that have invested the most time in this game? Also, seems fair that people who are more active should have more of a say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ragnarok8085 said:

Recently just had one of my members (9 cities) get declared on by someone with 22 cities so anything to stop stuff like that would be lovely.

Would you mind linking the specific war? Just wanna check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Hughes said:

Would you mind linking the specific war? Just wanna check it out.

It's an inactive city 9 guy who, now I checked yesterday so I might remember wrong, had like 2000 infra, and bloated military, which is something common in shitholes like The Regiment is. 

C9 and he was around 1600-1700 score.

Edited by Akuryo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

It's an inactive city 9 guy who, now I checked yesterday so I might remember wrong, had like 2000 infra, and bloated military, which is something common in shitholes like The Regiment is. 

C9 and he was around 1600-1700 score.

Pretty much exactly what I was checking for, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Hughes said:

Pretty much exactly what I was checking for, thanks.

Aye.

I have a c8 following our guidelines right now in NP, he's 1100 score, the attackers of this c9 would've had to be GW14 levels of rolled for 5 months to even hit him lol.

More information on other military changes would be good though @Alex, players will make better informed opinions, criticisms, and counter suggestions with a clearer picture. On its own, yeah, I think going beyond 50 ---> 100 change isn't advisable on its own and doesn't fix any problem except people who want to play so casually they refuse to learn even very basic things and demand you protect them. They shouldn't be protected for that.

However, for all we know, you have other military changes planned to roll out with this that have been discussed before (3 day maxing has been brought up alot as a perfect example) that could make your original numbers the more sensible option, and a proactive solution, something people complain you never do. It goes out without saying, 3 day maxing with current score compression ability would be very very very bad, those downdeclares you mentioned aren't so suicidal anymore, going to 200 score to roughly lock the tiers in, is exactly what should be done if that, or perhaps other changes are planned to come with.

Which, maybe you try to, but get rebuffed like this, and I think it's because we don't have the information you do to be properly informed. ?

 

Edited by Akuryo
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

You mean the older members that have invested the most time in this game? Also, seems fair that people who are more active should have more of a say.

I have been playing since 2015. In this time i have seen people active on the forums sway Alex decision away from changes that most view as good for the game (ex: GPA mass complaining about perks.) Just because a change might be bad for the larger nations of the game does not mean it is bad for the longevity of the game. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Viselli said:

I have been playing since 2015. In this time i have seen people active on the forums sway Alex decision away from changes that most view as good for the game (ex: GPA mass complaining about perks.) Just because a change might be bad for the larger nations of the game does not mean it is bad for the longevity of the game. 

It's your opinion whether this change is good for the longevity of the game, as pointed out by other people, there's a lot of apparent issues the change would have on wars (see: Dryad's post). The only reason I support it, is because there's a supposed other change coming allowing one to buy 1/3 of their max military per day, but alone, this change creates a lot of problems.

Edited by Aether

Share this post


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

I have been playing since 2015. In this time i have seen people active on the forums sway Alex decision away from changes that most view as good for the game.

As Aether said, it is your own opinion that those changes are "good for the game."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to what seems to be a popular opinion in this thread, I am reading the feedback and I'm trying to make updates to the game that are popular. I'm also trying to factor in what I think is best and trying to separate biases that players have (supporting suggestions that only benefit them, or railing against suggestions that hurt them personally but are in the game's best interest.)

I'm closing this thread, but I've opened a new one here:

You can see I've coupled this proposal with a 1/3 military rebuy to see how that impacts opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.