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

well the current meta established at the end of this war is: slot fill

 

I don't see how that is a good thing. Alex would have to spend hours to sort through it all, and quite frankly, its really hard to prove, esp now with all the marauding alliances. 

 

So, what do you suggest to end this problem? @Shiho Nishizumi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, all the alliances left participated in varying degrees of slot filling to get back up to fight npo. also, how do we address the issue of permanent blockading. Like, goons Strat killed hundreds of players.  players being rolled for months is not good for game retention. Also the issue of having to teach players to not win wars. Also isn't good for retention rate, makes the game a chore. 1/3 rebuys solves all three of these problems. it wouldn't necessarily "force" people to stop beige cycling, but, it shifts the goal of war to net damage, so its more about killing units, stealing stuff, and conserving resources. Which sounds alot more dynamic and promising than the current meta

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

>Permanent blockading.

Minimum unlootable refined.

>Getting rolled for months.

I've literally addressed how this wouldn't have changed because it was a political factor, not a mechanical one. Especially when, you know, one side was cheating for more than half the duration of the war.

>Not winning wars being a chore.

You do realize that 1/3 means no leeway for beiging, correct? It'd also actually minimize the amount of looting you could via GA's do simply because you'd have to save the res and map's for the buys which are more substantial.

>1/3 solves all.

No it doesn't. Hell, if you're broke and blockaded, it doesn't matter whether you have a 1/6 buy, 1/3 buy or even 1/1 buy. You can't buy if you're broke.

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

permanent blockading is bad cause you cant get any of your raided/ produced resources off your nation. 

cant be solved by minimum unlootable refine

 um, w 1/3 getting "rolled" is pretty hard unless your incompetent. like, you can mobilize efforts to get back up, really easily actually. because of that, pinning is pointless. so uh, technically both sides would be getting rolled, specifically, the bad players on both sides. it would just be two heavyweights landing punches until they agree to peace.

 

and yes, exactly, if you dont have resources, it doesn't matter what the buy is. so 1/3 really doest influence that. now, what it does do is put an emphasis on resource management. not burning resources air striking infra, stealing stuff. you run out of resources? raid. if you chose not to, its the same result as it is now. you get rolled till you peace. Does this make resources burn up quicker? sure, but alliances will have to adjust to this. the meta will shift to net damage.

 

and yes, it is in no way a fix all. it solves these problems, but there are others, like how losing a war is better than winning a war rn. 1/3 would get alliances to place a bigger emphasis on looting, but like you said, they could still beige cycle, but your a milcom guy. how many days could you keep 1000 people perfectly beige cycled before getting burnt out?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes increase city score, ideally with city 1 actually counting for score as well (why do we want 1-city score range shenanigans exactly?), no on the buy change. That would be a HUGE difference and, honestly, I don't think anyone can really predict how much of a difference it would make. Either way, it almost certainly would screw up the environment that makes the city score change even relevant, let alone beneficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sir Scarfalotwell, just my perspective on it. Cities have always been 50 score. Why suddenly reevaluate what they are worth? 1/3 buy has been talked about for some time now, if that is implemented, then yes, cities are more valuable, so score should reflect that. like if you raise city score to 100, and dont make cities more valuable, the entire environment is completely changed.

or like, make the first 15 cities worth less 15+ stays 50. the main goal is to shield 10 cities, who just have planes and 1k infra and soldiers form getting wrecked by 20 cities. that would solve that problem. however, you still have the whole slew of other issues, that can be addressed later,  like perma rolling people, which kinda makes war boring for both sides. after week 2 everyone just sits around waiting for big wigs to make peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we are at it make tanks more resistant? , you can lose only up to 5% aircraft from a tank hit with proposed changes but lose up to 15% of max tanks  for example 4.1k /31k lost and aircraft are cheaper to replace 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Di Vali said:

permanent blockading is bad cause you cant get any of your raided/ produced resources off your nation. 

Minimum is meant so that you can't get cycled in perpetuity due to going broke. It's not meant to give raiders a free pass for their loot.

Production can be taxed 100/100 unless if beiged.

59 minutes ago, Di Vali said:

um, w 1/3 getting "rolled" is pretty hard unless your incompetent. like, you can mobilize efforts to get back up, really easily actually. because of that, pinning is pointless. so uh, technically both sides would be getting rolled, specifically, the bad players on both sides. it would just be two heavyweights landing punches until they agree to peace.

Okay. I'll be blunt because apparently what I've said isn't getting through.

You can't fricking pretend that this would've made a god damn difference in a war where the other side was fricking trying to exterminate you. And you can't fricking sustain a trade with a side that was cheating nearly a billion worth of resources per god damn day.

>1/3 was good for perma blockades but actually isn't so it doesn't hurt to add anyways.

Not an argument for adding it.

The rest of what you've said is already done as is, with no infra pads being a thing to keep people in range. I also think that you overestimate the amount that was being looted towards the 2nd half of the war, the odd Polaris bank loot notwithstanding. At any rate, as I said:
 

Quote

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.

Arguing that it'll be the same as current is an argument for the current system, not the one you're arguing for. Since it doesn't make sense to make mechanical changes if an end result is the same. You're just wasting time and effort, and are at risk of implementing bugs.
 

59 minutes ago, Di Vali said:

and yes, it is in no way a fix all.

It doesn't even solve these issues. That you've opted to ignore what I've written, or side step it with unrelated matters, doesn't change that.

59 minutes ago, Di Vali said:

but your a milcom guy. how many days could you keep 1000 people perfectly beige cycled before getting burnt out?

The actual answer is that I'd have them not beige, and simply whack a mole their buy attempts until expiry. 

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Minimum is meant so that you can't get cycled in perpetuity due to going broke. It's not meant to give raiders a free pass for their loot.

Production can be taxed 100/100 unless if beiged.

Okay. I'll be blunt because apparently what I've said isn't getting through.

You can't fricking pretend that this would've made a god damn difference in a war where the other side was fricking trying to exterminate you. And you can't fricking sustain a trade with a side that was cheating nearly a billion worth of resources per god damn day.

>1/3 was good for perma blockades but actually isn't so it doesn't hurt to add anyways.

Not an argument for adding it.

The rest of what you've said is already done as is, with no infra pads being a thing to keep people in range. I also think that you overestimate the amount that was being looted towards the 2nd half of the war, the odd Polaris bank loot notwithstanding. At any rate, as I said:
 

Arguing that it'll be the same as current is an argument for the current system, not the one you're arguing for. Since it doesn't make sense to make mechanical changes if an end result is the same. You're just wasting time and effort, and are at risk of implementing bugs.
 

It doesn't even solve these issues. That you've opted to ignore what I've written, or side step it with unrelated matters, doesn't change that.

The actual answer is that I'd have them not beige, and simply whack a mole their buy attempts until expiry. 

well, yes, they were trying to exterminate the game, and sadly, all the good milcom minds were on their side, fighting a horde of cripples, so yea, that was doomed from the start. and cheating is not allowed, so Alex will ban people who cheat. That is irrelevant. Thats like me saying "this wouldn't prevent people from using a glitch to max their planes out whenever." No, it may to have made a difference in the outcome of the war, and neither would the 100 score city change, but your looking at this from a "side vs side" perspective. there's nothing Alex can do to make an incompetent side beat a competent one. However, look at it from a different lens, player vs player. A thing a lot of ppl forget is wars benefit smart players on both sides. this change would help facilitate that. It would allow smart players to win, not necessarily old and big players , but smart, active players.,  now, what does this do on a bigger scale? well, terms dont mean anything. if your side blows up twice as much stuff, and steals twice as much, you win. no one gets "pinned", but the side that is more competent will be able to work together to pick and chose good battles. now, I admit, the 1/3 wouldn't fully accomplish this vision, but pair it with something like being beiged, you give part of your military capacity to the victor, would cause a meta change, to a more exciting war. It wouldn't be about the numbers or tiering, the victor is determined by who coordinates better, which helps small alliances compete in war.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the last war as an example of the meta is inaccurate.

IQ spent years forgoing growth to stockpile resources for a perma war conflict. In the end after all that investment they still had to cheat to stay afloat.

That being said, all the issues of that war would be worse with the increase to rebuy. Its already way too difficult to effectively "pin" people in war. All this change does is make it even harder, and put even more emphasis on resources as a deciding factor for victory rather than coordination. skill or activity.

As for changing score, unless the military units are rebalanced to be more reflective of strength, like I suggested before, I don't see this as a good idea on its own. Score is way too arbitrary as it is to go making it more defined.

  • Upvote 4

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Di Vali said:

all the good milcom

I'll use an example of many:

If they had had good milcom, they would've recognized how overstretched we were early on and concentrated all their counters on one assault, and not sent them piecemeal for us to nearly use our daily buys on. NPO's entry was unnecessary had they played it right, and was needed solely due to their incompetence.

Ofc a lot more than that, but that is just the starting point. That you seem to think otherwise, plus how "cheating is irrelevant" when GPWC is quite explicitly how they had the funds to drag the war double the length of KF (bans notwithstanding, and the bans only having punished one AA when the cheating benefitted their coalition as a whole), does tell me that you quite frankly don't know what the frick you're talking about. So I'll just disregard future posts on that basis.

And yes, claiming meta (aka standard) on a war that was defined by unprecedented and extreme is simply dumb. Especially when the people who were largely responsible for how it turned out is gone.

  • Upvote 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

itt: the losers from the previous expressing how they don't want it be easier to fight back in a losing war, after being sat on for the better part of an irl year.

But yes, we don't know "what the frick" we're talking about.

 

Instead of a positive update for the whole game, Alex is now uploading a full nerf to raiding again onto the test server.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2020 at 10:50 AM, Roberts said:

itt: the losers from the previous expressing how they don't want it be easier to fight back in a losing war, after being sat on for the better part of an irl year.

But yes, we don't know "what the frick" we're talking about.

 

Instead of a positive update for the whole game, Alex is now uploading a full nerf to raiding again onto the test server.

To reference the last war as justification for this update is dangerously reactionary. Seriously, it was unprecedented and ultimately rooted in foul play. Considering the two posts immediately prior to yours, I don't know how that could be made clearer.

Edited by Kurdanak
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
xzhPlEh.png?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2020 at 4:00 PM, Kurdanak said:

To reference the last war as justification for this update is dangerously reactionary. Seriously, it was unprecedented and ultimately rooted in foul play. Considering the two posts immediately prior to yours, I don't know how that could be made clearer.

because the last war was just yet another example in a long string of wars that the mechanics are fundamentally flawed. It just happens to be the most recent and probably best example.

There will be no update or mechanical change that can change wartime morale. You either care about your pixels or you don't, a healthy interest in a game that you play isn't a bad thing. We saw NPO+company repeatedly over the years reach a damage "threshold" that they didn't care if they kept 'losing'. Conversely last war they won but weren't satisfied with their threshold of winning so they sat on everyone instead. A toxic group like that could potentially rise again and abuse the mechanics, again. There's probably bad gov people out there right now discussing how NPO's attrition strategy was "cruel but effective."

 

Changing the score formula to only hurt raiders won't help that.

Changing rebuy rates to help the entire game as a whole will help that.

 

You guys need to climb out of the echo chamber and do some of your own math sometimes. Lowering casualties and raising rebuy rates gives war a tactical meaning to it other than a quick blitz-and-sit for 5 days. There's more to this game than your once a year wars where it's only about the spreadsheet damage stats, the quicker you grasp this the quicker PnW will stop seeing 2/3rds attrition rate from global wars.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Roberts said:

because the last war was just yet another example in a long string of wars that the mechanics are fundamentally flawed. It just happens to be the most recent and probably best example.

There will be no update or mechanical change that can change wartime morale. You either care about your pixels or you don't, a healthy interest in a game that you play isn't a bad thing. We saw NPO+company repeatedly over the years reach a damage "threshold" that they didn't care if they kept 'losing'. Conversely last war they won but weren't satisfied with their threshold of winning so they sat on everyone instead. A toxic group like that could potentially rise again and abuse the mechanics, again. There's probably bad gov people out there right now discussing how NPO's attrition strategy was "cruel but effective."

 

Changing the score formula to only hurt raiders won't help that.

Changing rebuy rates to help the entire game as a whole will help that.

 

You guys need to climb out of the echo chamber and do some of your own math sometimes. Lowering casualties and raising rebuy rates gives war a tactical meaning to it other than a quick blitz-and-sit for 5 days. There's more to this game than your once a year wars where it's only about the spreadsheet damage stats, the quicker you grasp this the quicker PnW will stop seeing 2/3rds attrition rate from global wars.

Unfortunately, your argument is wrong on at least three foundational levels.

First, neither the score formula nor the rebuy rates nor the unlimited cheat resources had or even could have had any effect on the toxicity. That much is inevitable in competitive environments; as long as people hold onto their backwards and utterly immoral mindsets of "winning" and "losing" as things to be achieved at any cost, then no amount of mechanical balancing nor moderation will stop them from being as monstrous and despicable as can possibly be imagined by the most damaged minds mankind has to offer. Whether the mechanical abuse is bending the rules, using poorly balanced mechanics or just flat dishonesty is quite irrelevant and isn't something that we can possibly stop on a mechanical level.

Perhaps more importantly, it was in fact not effective. Many players left... and all of their side did, either entirely turned into pillars of salt as they looked back upon the godforsaken city of theirs burning behind them or simply put themselves into quiet exile, nursing their hatred still. One might be tempted to attribute that state of affairs to the act of god smiting their foul works, but do recall that their GWPC was merely a logical extension of the 'tactics' (I use that word in the most ironic and loosest possible sense) that they had been abusing for over 14 years. Nothing about their specific heresies changed the core reality of their deliberately crafted engine of intolerance, bigotry and hatred, which has failed them time and time again even before they arrived on Orbis at all.

Third, the rebuy rates suggested and tested really are far too much of an overcorrection. Like I pointed out before, on the one hand sure this makes it harder to sit on people... on the other hand, it makes raw wealth and number of nations able to throw into the meatgrinder more important than even militarization itself, to the point that there are legitimate defensive merits to not having military at all.

Consider, if you will, that the main thing limiting IQ's ability to deploy their cheated crap was the score range limitations, the score value and the speed of militarization. With these changes, shit like GWPC and for that matter an IQ style blob could be just plain that much worse, not better.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Many players left... and all of their side did, either entirely turned into pillars of salt as they looked back upon the godforsaken city of theirs burning behind them or simply put themselves into quiet exile, nursing their hatred still. One might be tempted to attribute that state of affairs to the act of god smiting their foul works, but do recall that their GWPC was merely a logical extension of the 'tactics' (I use that word in the most ironic and loosest possible sense) that they had been abusing for over 14 years. Nothing about their specific heresies changed the core reality of their deliberately crafted engine of intolerance, bigotry and hatred, which has failed them time and time again even before they arrived on Orbis at all.

That's a little aggressive.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Unfortunately, your argument is wrong on at least three foundational levels.

First, neither the score formula nor the rebuy rates nor the unlimited cheat resources had or even could have had any effect on the toxicity. That much is inevitable in competitive environments; as long as people hold onto their backwards and utterly immoral mindsets of "winning" and "losing" as things to be achieved at any cost, then no amount of mechanical balancing nor moderation will stop them from being as monstrous and despicable as can possibly be imagined by the most damaged minds mankind has to offer. Whether the mechanical abuse is bending the rules, using poorly balanced mechanics or just flat dishonesty is quite irrelevant and isn't something that we can possibly stop on a mechanical level.

Perhaps more importantly, it was in fact not effective. Many players left... and all of their side did, either entirely turned into pillars of salt as they looked back upon the godforsaken city of theirs burning behind them or simply put themselves into quiet exile, nursing their hatred still. One might be tempted to attribute that state of affairs to the act of god smiting their foul works, but do recall that their GWPC was merely a logical extension of the 'tactics' (I use that word in the most ironic and loosest possible sense) that they had been abusing for over 14 years. Nothing about their specific heresies changed the core reality of their deliberately crafted engine of intolerance, bigotry and hatred, which has failed them time and time again even before they arrived on Orbis at all.

Third, the rebuy rates suggested and tested really are far too much of an overcorrection. Like I pointed out before, on the one hand sure this makes it harder to sit on people... on the other hand, it makes raw wealth and number of nations able to throw into the meatgrinder more important than even militarization itself, to the point that there are legitimate defensive merits to not having military at all.

Consider, if you will, that the main thing limiting IQ's ability to deploy their cheated crap was the score range limitations, the score value and the speed of militarization. With these changes, shit like GWPC and for that matter an IQ style blob could be just plain that much worse, not better.

Your argument is wrong for multiple reasons

 

1. War is already about wealth and nation count. This does not change that fact. However, it slow a smaller group to win by being very clever. hence, making war less about wealth and numbers and more about skill

2. People keep bringing up how last war is not a good reflection of war in the game. Id agree with that,  most wars are dogpiles. You should NOT be penalized as an alliannce for refusing to sign half the game to win. This addresses that. It gives you an alternative of getting really clever at when to rebuy to do the most damage to your enemy, making them more likely to peace with you.

3.  There is no way for Alex to combat toxicity with mechanic changes. However, that shouldn't be an excuse to never implement new things into the game like you are trying to make it. 

4. At the end of the day, this game is about willpower. If you want to win, you will find a way. If you dont like another "IQ" like group coming to power and policing the world, there's bound to be other people who also dislike them. Form a coalition, take them down. Thats how its always been, remember papers please the test got too strong, knightfall when TKR got too strong, etc. However, Alex shouldn't be used as a weapon to kill good players because the rest are bad at the game. Like, people talk about unfair advantages.

"Using infra is unfair cause it lets people make more money than me"

"using just planes isn't fair cause its too effective"

"guerrilla isn't fair cause its too effective"

 

Not an argument against Alex rebalancing, however, good players will ALWAYS find the meta before others. Meta shifts are good for game so it doesn't get stale, but dont fault ppl like IQ for figuring out how to tier before the so called "milcom geniuses" did. Its a result of one side  having competent milcom

Edited by Di Vali
  • Upvote 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.