Jump to content

Change City Score and Increase Military Rebuy Time to 1/3 Daily


Alex
 Share

Updating Nation Score Formula and Increasing Military Rebuy Speed  

259 members have voted

  1. 1. Should city score be increased from 50 per city (after city 1) to 100 per city, along with a 1/3 rebuy per day for conventional military units?

    • Yes
      128
    • No
      119


Recommended Posts

@Alex

If you are going to be changing nation score, maybe you should look at rebalancing unit scores like I suggested before.

You should also probably break this poll into two separate polls in case people agree to one change but not the other.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kurdanak said:

That was an hour in, have patience. :v

 

Well said by Zoot. I'd be curious to see the "yes voters" address the above specifically. 

It's actually really easy. Every sphere in the game currently has whales and upper tier. If they have crappy ones, they should do better FA. If they have few, do better econ. There's a 5+ month minimum peace left, it's not hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like this is pretty much not addressing any of the important issues with the war system. Fix the fundamental issues and not give us band-aid fixes.

 

  • Upvote 5

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alex you already have simulators for individual wars and stuff. Why don't you write a script that simulates a war between two alliances. One with ten 30 city nations and the other with twenty 10 city nations. See how many turns it takes got the latter to annihilated. Then increase the latter's city per nation to 11 and see the difference, and so on. Once you are satisfied with how soon the higher city nations can down declare and destroy others, use ratios to adjust the score.

So, if you are happy with the outcome at 14 cities per nation of the 20 nation alliance, the city score to use for nation score would be: 50 * 14/10 = 70.

 

Also, like others have mentioned, it'd be best to do one change at a time to see the effects of that change alone. No more than one game changing changes at the same time.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the score increase for cities, but the military reduction i dissagree with.
This makes no sense together, kinda defeats the purpose of the higher city score.

Edited by MonkeyDLegend
  • Upvote 1
32204241a4480364cfebb04c10bf72cfaeb4dce2x696.gif
Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D
Former Director of Finance, Security in e$
Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server)
luffyt$forum.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Keegoz said:

I feel like this is pretty much not addressing any of the important issues with the war system. Fix the fundamental issues and not give us band-aid fixes.

 

"Planes are overpowered."

"How about we double their recruitment rate?"

Smh.

  • Haha 2
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Malleator said:

You should, because people will NEVER take it as worth anything since the IRL comparisons are utterly irrelevant anyway to game balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if a whale double buys, he has no more buy left. it is stupid easy to slot him with 3 15-20 city nations, who do have buys, and completely kill him by update. However, It does make the ppl sitting on them have to work a little harder to keep the whale down. yes, the whale will initially blow up the smaller nation they attacked, but with quick response, that damage is minimal. If your aa is good, the attack will be thwarted. basically it leaves space for the whale to win if the defenders suck, or the defenders to win if they coordinate well.  NPO showed us first hand how weak whales really are. basically, in the current meta, 20 city nations are the whales. They can declare on people who cant declare on them, and drag them down 1 by one. This would make that still true, however, it would give whales a chance to drop down and fight back. Again, whoever would coordinate better would win. And this update kinda fixes the beige issue. It turns war from trying to kill the other side, to trying to conserve resources, and steal stuff from the other side. So really, this helps new player growth. Instead of having to sit on people, they will be able to focus on raiding in globals, and just from first hand experience, at 15 cities, with max tanks, you can make 200m a day for the first month of a war. for reference, thats enough to buy like city 25. so, a pack of 15 city nations even, with great coordination could not only beat whales, but raid all their money and use it to become a whale.       

 

Again, under 1/3 buy, its a more chaotic battlefield, and its less about tiering, and more about how you coordinate.

 

This update does not help old players or whales. It helps smart players.  And yea, like Valk said, beige is another big issue, cause having to train players to not win wars hurts retention rate. This kinda solves that, like, making pining players harder, so might as well beige. An additional change would still be needed, perhaps, if you get beiged, you lose x amount of your military production and the winner gains it? And about planes being OP, Alex posted a thread yesterday about ground attacks killing planes, which is realistic for all the history enthusiast, and balanced. basically, in his original post, every immense triumph would kill 5% planes, and if there were 4 or so nations that worked together to beat up the players ground, they could wipe out a HUGE chunk of their planes

Edited by Di Vali
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also please dont forget that to get into "range" of little nations, most regular whales (not raiding whales) on the winning side of the war, need to drop generally over a billion dollars in infra to even get close.   And you want losing whales that get dropped down so they are able to wreak a little havok and swing wars back the other direction.  Kinda like how knocked down 15 city nations can wipe out 8 city nations with little effort.

Assuming a war is not a complete curbstomp (see knightfall) the losing side needs large nations to drop score, and help turn the tide in the lower tier, while the other side's upper tier is completely useless because they are too large to help.  This helps keep the ebb and flow of a war. 

Granted you have now made it easier for large nations once the extra infra has been shed to drop down since they can now buy more planes/military in a double buy.  In a global, personally I would be wary of dropping below 1000-1300 planes to try to pick people off, just because of exposure to counters (NPO's war bot did a great job of making sure I got countered every time I tried) Now I can probably drop to 0 planes but without coordinating with other nations, tho it will be next to impossible to 0 someone out on my own, I might be able to drop lower.  whats painful with the increase in purchasing, is the cost of war, its going to cost a nation like mine 11k alum 8-10 million dollars to do a double buy.

I see some people saying its unfair that a 30 city nation can wipe out a 15-20 city nation, I find it pretty unfair that 3 nations that are 200-250 days old who are physically impossible for me to hit due to the war declaration range, can take down my nation that is over 2000 days old.

End of the day I think it would be interesting to roll this out and see how these two changes actually affect gameplay.  It will definitely cause people to come up with some new strats to figure out what is the best way to handle things.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you can't sic a C30 with someone half his size. Especially under a format where, you know, the whale can (if hadn't already) effectively double the ground of that of his attacker and basically guarantee a GC. After the current effects of GC, you aren't talking of 1350 planes vs say 2000 of a partially deplaned whale. You're talking of about 900. And as Valk said, you can throw a downed whale or two in to do a quick AS to further jeopardize such an attempt, especially when a downed C30 can basically throw C11 plane counts at those guys basically whenever.

Even a C20 is a hard sell, and not something that, unlike as being suggested here, NPO went with as a first choice. Not even secondary. The first recourse is, obviously, to simply have some AA with the upper tier to do the dragging for them. Which in the last war, was done by tCW and the likes. The third was the C20, but the first two were nations with the actual punching power to put in a hurting that couldn't be just shrugged off. Once they had alienated basically all of their upper tier co-belligerents, they instead resorted to having a single upper tier nation act as tip of spear for the rest to capitalize upon. To the extent where they built up some nations into higher city counts specifically to do this sort of work.

The amount of times I've seen NPO send off three C20's on one 30+ are scant at best. And those where they did do that, were mostly when the guy had hit like five people or something of the sort, which yeah, no brainer.

There's also that the C20 gargantuan consolidated tier that they and BK had (and which they based their entire strategy on) isn't really a thing anymore. They also managed what they managed because they engaged in some extreme infra selling which, while effective at what it did, was prohibitively expensive (10m per city 20 if you rebuilt to 700. Doesn't include improvements. 850 with improvements is easily 20m per city. This, of course, doesn't include lost production) to the point where I am fairly certain that it was a contributing factor towards their decision of cheating with GPWC.

People like Valk, Zoot and Swedge did a pretty damn good job of explaining why this is a bad idea (which is pretty self-evident and why I didn't bother talking about it myself), so I won't repeat on that. I'll just say that this hypothetical of C20 vs 30 is not just moot due to what I said, but also due to the fact that in reality, there's a ton of nations in between those two to screen for the C30. And those nations in between too benefit more from the doubled plane recruitment rate than do the C20's, simply because it's military they can have on the field which enables more favorable trades, both in the miliary and economic sense.

If your concern is lopsided blitzes, address it specifically. Though, again as Valk said, the main culprit is the plane and how centralizing it is. The price increase was basically the worst pretend-nerf that could've been implemented, as it had no bearing on it's effectiveness and multi-functionality. It simply meant that they're more expensive to replace, and as Durmij had pointed out, had de facto given an alum advantage to nation that already had planes at that point, to the detriment of those who lacked it.

  • Upvote 6
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a pretty big difference though between NPO not wanting to use c20s to drag down an untouched whale versus countering a whale that has just used up his double buy and has thus made himself vulnerable. What people seem to really push as the downside of the change in the thread here is that double buying would become too strong, but if you really think about it, it should be easy to see why it isnt too hard to take a guy down that doesnt have another buy for 24h while the counters do.

  • Thanks 1

Biggest-Bloc-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even when he's used part of his buy, it's a tricky proposition. Which is why Boyce was able to be afloat for so long until he got dragged down (and he was probably pulling some of the craziest sell downs during the war). This is in spite the fact that he was marked to be dragged by Roquentin both for personal reasons, and for the hindrance he was.

The one instance where he did get brought down by C20's, was when he had declared a bunch of offensives, and it so happened that in between these declarations and him building back up, he got hit by one of his offensive slots.

And it's not just him either. I've seen plenty other people do just that and be quite fine. 

The issue is that people are too fixated on this particular hypothetical while neglecting to factor in the greater picture.

  • Upvote 4
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Even when he's used part of his buy, it's a tricky proposition. Which is why Boyce was able to be afloat for so long until he got dragged down (and he was probably pulling some of the craziest sell downs during the war). This is in spite the fact that he was marked to be dragged by Roquentin both for personal reasons, and for the hindrance he was.

The one instance where he did get brought down by C20's, was when he had declared a bunch of offensives, and it so happened that in between these declarations and him building back up, he got hit by one of his offensive slots.

And it's not just him either. I've seen plenty other people do just that and be quite fine. 

The issue is that people are too fixated on this particular hypothetical while neglecting to factor in the greater picture.

I mean that's exactly what I think of you guts talking about people like Boyce when history shows his actions are typically suicidal and not the hilarious blazing trail of memes you depicted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

I mean that's exactly what I think of you guts talking about people like Boyce when history shows his actions are typically suicidal and not the hilarious blazing trail of memes you depicted. 

He wasn't the only one. He was just the ballsiest. 

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't agree with is people saying that a zeroed whale will be invincible, just double buy from nothing and defeat everyone. Thats just not realistic imo, but this argument has been brought up: "it's not possible to hold whales down".

What I can definitely relate to a lot more is that it would be fairly difficult to bring down a whale that already had max military when they decommed parts and then double bought. And I think that's the kind of situation the Boyce example refers to. This is also what the city score change by my understanding is supposed to compensate though, let those whales that do possess quite a bit of military not downdeclare too far. And I think it's up to debate if an increase to 100 score per city is enough.

Edited by Dryad
typo

Biggest-Bloc-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's moreso getting them to that point in the first place, though the prospect of a C30 nation being able to muster an airforce *larger* than that of a C20 on a double buy (lack of reserve notwithstanding) is... ehm. 

The city NS thing isn't as much of a problem for me. I think that it's misguided, given the nature of most of those declarations, but it's nowhere near as relevant as the 1/3 thing. And if the aim is truly to mitigate/avoid those instances, then it doesn't need to be paired with a 1/3 revision.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely feel why people would find it kinda ridiculous if a zeroed player could double buy to have more than their opponent. But whats the alternative? Right now you are a zeroed whale and you got 3 c20s on you and you have absolutely no chance of fighting back. Now Alex wants to get rid of beige and you are never gonna get back up at all, assuming there is no other change along with it (which of course there will be, which is what this here could be). I would actually make it out to be a good thing if the c30 double buy lets them have a chance on fighting back, they will be up against multiple c20s anyway, so its not like beating one c20 is gonna save them. Even if the c20s do get beaten down its not like their score will be high enough for whales that have their military standing to immediately redeclare and bully them forever. On the other hand the c20 are certainly always in range to declare on the c30 and if the c30 and friends cant fight back then he is just forever dead.

I also think there is no inherent need to even drag every last whale down, if they are too high in score to take part in combat anyway, which if they don't sell down a lot (which may make them vulnerable) is gonna be the case with the coupled city score change.

  • Upvote 1

Biggest-Bloc-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well it limits peoplein war to a certain degree. like, you cant dec on more than 2 people already, esp w this, cause say a 25 city took down two 18 cities, those 18 could double buy too, and slot the 25 city.  Really, think of all the situations you can, this doesnt benefit a tier. It benefits good players. This isn't the fix all to the war system no, but it is somewhat balanced. Cities are more useful, their score goes up. a good pair to release together. 

war is boring cause you can drag ppl down in one week then you sit around for two months while the big wigs talk it out. This would make war a constant thing, no pinning, just people fighting

Edited by Di Vali
typo
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Dryad (not an actual ping since you read this thread anyways)

Where is beige removal suggested? It wasn't mentioned in his most recent thread.

Whales aren't the only ones in a plight if zeroed. And the thing about such a change is that it doesn't change just that. It changes everything. Incapacity to pin means that war shifts from being about control to economic damage (at least moreso than it sometimes was about). You may think "good", but there are a few ramifications about it.


First, smaller groups can't achieve victory against larger numbers through superior planning/coordination, simply because those foes don't stay down long enough for that to be viable. You may argue that the coordination/planning may help to secure better trades. That's true, to some extent. Given a large enough disparity (and assuming the larger group isn't thoroughly incompetent to the point of not being able to send semi decent counters), you won't be able to trade effectively over a sustained period of time simply because of numbers. There's only so much you can do with a single day's buy.

Second, such a system by and large by default grants the advantage towards older alliances and/or players, simply because they've had more time to stockpile when compared to newer entities. It also encourages avoiding wars, given that having a large stockpile would matter substantially more than it does now. Encouraging avoiding/delaying the most worthwhile aspects of this game is not something I find to be desirable.

I'm also not convinced that it would have mitigated the cited issue of last war lasting for so long because it was mechanically impossible to remount a comeback. While mechanically it was (at least conventionally), the actual reason why it went for so long was political. The current system has been in place for about three years now. Three wars lasted longer than month and a half. Two were held to such a long extent by IQ. Especially given what transpired from NPOLT, can you seriously make the argument that "oh they broke we can just peace now" would've made a difference? Given the logs, I don't think so. You can't really feasibly fix a political issue via mechanics.

Again, I think that there's merit to wanting to tamper the effectiveness of first strike a bit. I simply don't think that this is the way to do so.

  • Upvote 3
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beige removal hasn't been mentioned in this recent set of threads, but it has been in the past and I'd be very surprised if it isn't on his radar anymore.

I actually do think a war ending in bankruptcy of at least one side would be positive. I mean it's one of 2 things, alliances either hide their bank and do nothing as they are being sat on, or they will be able to fight back but in the process of doing so drain their bank until its broke. I personally prefer the later, not sure if that's just me.

I think that winning conditions are stupidly defined in the current meta. My personal golden rule of warfare is that higher infra always loses. The way a smaller coalition would beat a significantly larger wouldn't need to be that they wipe out their military and drain them of all stockpiles rendering them unable to get back up. A larger coalition would have a lot of infra to blow up and waste a lot of time just not being able to rebuild. Just wasting the larger groups time is all the damage you really need to do to wanna make them not continue the war forever. So personally I'm not worried about small groups getting trashed by larger ones, I'm certainly not in a dominant aa myself that has stockpiled for years and I'm not afraid of these changes. So basically, sure a smaller group will run out of stockpiles first but even then it's not a defeat. And this kind of warfare composed of just blowing infra up etc is completely unaffected by these changes in the first place.

I guess in contrast to me most people don't enjoy getting rolled to bankruptcy though, so perhaps I am in fact biased here in what I don't mind the game to become.

Biggest-Bloc-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1/3 buy was originally proposed as a way to mitigate/negate the whole beige shenanigans. Since you only would need two defeats as opposed to four to comfortably rebuild to max with 1/3.

Well, the funds aren't there just for war, but also post-war. Having gone into a war with an AA bank empty, and fighting another war basically a month after, I've been there and done that about being broke after the fact. It's not an amusing prospect let's just say.

That works if the group's comprised of huggers, really. And such a behavior is detrimental to themselves, because it basically reads as "Oh hey people can get free hits on us.". That's not a message you want to be sending off. And if it drags, there's always the argument of sure, group with infra is losing infra, but the group with no infra has no infra, and sometimes no production (if running an exclusively military build). This isn't a problem for people who're into raiding, but that group is just one of several that play this game. Things that aren't a factor for them are a factor for others. And if the argument is "Well, they may be trashed but they can always just raid/turret after getting trashed", the same is true with the current model.

  • Upvote 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
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.