Jump to content

Rollback/Modificaton of the new war changes


Majima Goro
 Share

Should parts of the new update be rolled back?  

138 members have voted

  1. 1. Should parts of the new update be rolled back?

    • Yes
      79
    • No
      46


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Hime-sama said:

Change the resistance damages.

Ground attack: PV-4, MS-8, IT-12

Airstrike: PV-3, MS-6, IT-9

Naval Battle: PV-2, MS-4, IT-6

(Numbers can be subject to change, ideally test out different number formulas)

This will help better reflect the power of each unit, as well as make it possible to zero an opponent before running out of resistance.

A resistance change is not really necessary atm. Especially the ones suggested-these will make it more easy for someone to sit on a person.
Resistance changes, if any, must be done to prevent zeroing an opponent without beiging. At a 5553, the time taken to zero an opponent under the previous system was 5 airstrikes to zero air, 4 to zero tanks, 4 to zero soldiers and 5 to zero ships. This adds to a total of 18 or around 6 airstrikes per person(72 resistance at most). Ofc, this was done by 3 people attacking a person, considering rebuys of units and all at same city count, getting ITs only. If I were to change the system, I'd make 1 IT airstrike shed 15 resistance, MS at 12 and 10 for PV. This way, the target loses at most 90 resistance for the airstrikes, meaning the people will beige him if they hit him once more. Additionally, Ground Battles in their current state should have a refactoring of 12 per IT, 10 per MS and 7 per PV while Naval Battles will shred 18 for an IT, 15 for a MS and 12 for a PV. Missiles can be beefed up to 20 resistance and nukes can stay at 25.

2 hours ago, Hime-sama said:

Also deadass revert the city score changes or modify it to 75 score per city and/or make the unit score values an actual representation of their usefulness. Not for the sake of raiding, but for the sake of giving the losing side of a war some way of fighting back that isn't launching missiles and nukes. Alex, you should not be facilitating permawar, especially after we just went 9 months through it.

The new city scores are fine tbh. They dont allow downdeclares as deadly as earlier. What should be buffed up are unit scores. As per my suggestion, military scores would be buffed to 202.5/city at max army. At a standard 0251 however, the score would be lower at around 120 score in total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war changes tbh its difficult to offer a analysis rn due to the bugs, so I'll come back to that later.

In regards to the score changes (which imo is the most significant change of the lot) to address several points which have been bought up:

The score adjustments are not 'minor' - if you haven't noticed that much difference its probably because you are running a high infra/military setup; for those of us running a leaner build the score change is massive (for example: I've gone from 1590 > 2640 overnight)

The net result is heavy tier stratification; for the people who think this is inconsequential I would invite you to think back to the last global war:

  • NPO operated a 'death tier' around the 20 City Level; the new scoring system effectively means that if you were in that range there would be no prospect of escape - ironically (given the score change has been partially motivated by people complaining about 'downdeclares') this would have resulted in a lot more people quitting.
  • a global war, where someone with no military can be declared on by someone with max military at the same city level, offers little to no chance of staging a comeback (given the predominance of blockade cycling tactics); this results in a stale, predictable and boring war - whoever has numerical/military superiority will win
  • for all the people complaining about the last global war I honestly don't see any issues with the tactics involved (and I say that as someone on the opposing side); the only reason why NPO was able to engage in a prolonged airstrike campaign was because they were printing money via GPWC - once the bans came in the NPO machine crumbled because they were no longer able to economically sustain the military campaign
  • throughout the last global war there were numerous attempts to regain control over the lower tier; the lines shifted but periodically safe zones were established at certain score ranges (e.g. <1000, <1200 score etc.) - with the new scoring system this quite simply would have been impossible due the majority of people being stuck inside the NPO death zone
  • running planes only is a valid tactic; I honestly don't understand peoples complaints with this - the solution is to run a lean setup where it costs them more destroy cheap troops (soldiers) than the damage inflicted - under the new system max military will become the new meta, so effectively zero tactics involved, again resulting in stale/boring gameplay
     

And no, we don't need to 'wait till the next war' to see the impact these changes will have.

Imo some sort of middle ground is vastly preferable to the new scoring system; personally I don't think changes which make global wars predictable and hand an unassailable advantage to the larger side are desirable or healthy for the game in general.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Akuryo said:

If you think it's just minor score adjustments maybe you should spend some time in a real Alliance learning how to properly wage a war and then re read those changes for me chief.

NP sphere never knew real war. Thy only knew how to spam planes & always attack in groups. Once we signaled u guys out in GLW yall were scrambling to figure something out. Wasn't until after Cheat Day ya all got back up cus NPO sphere was mostly gone & its allies hearts broken. W/ this new update will come the revolution that will put NP man down for good.  Spend some time actually trying to learn war tactics w/o planes for war in a war-esqec aa like Rose sphere aa´s chief

Edited by Firwof Kromwell
Or maybe try being a pirate or mercenary to learn war better that way chief

 

                            memed-iFirwof650x150.jpeg.9a92ea222b9010f9fae97a1864a6759e.jpeg     

 I personally voice my own thought processes based on own desires of informational curiosity as well love for discussion based on questions & statements I made rather just trusting info like a collective hivemind

Onlookers whom hop aboard the brainless bandwagon refusing inter-articulation based on assumed feelings, go give yo balls a tug ya tit fugger         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AntMan said:

A resistance change is not really necessary atm. Especially the ones suggested-these will make it more easy for someone to sit on a person.
Resistance changes, if any, must be done to prevent zeroing an opponent without beiging. At a 5553, the time taken to zero an opponent under the previous system was 5 airstrikes to zero air, 4 to zero tanks, 4 to zero soldiers and 5 to zero ships. This adds to a total of 18 or around 6 airstrikes per person(72 resistance at most). Ofc, this was done by 3 people attacking a person, considering rebuys of units and all at same city count, getting ITs only. If I were to change the system, I'd make 1 IT airstrike shed 15 resistance, MS at 12 and 10 for PV. This way, the target loses at most 90 resistance for the airstrikes, meaning the people will beige him if they hit him once more. Additionally, Ground Battles in their current state should have a refactoring of 12 per IT, 10 per MS and 7 per PV while Naval Battles will shred 18 for an IT, 15 for a MS and 12 for a PV. Missiles can be beefed up to 20 resistance and nukes can stay at 25.

The new city scores are fine tbh. They dont allow downdeclares as deadly as earlier. What should be buffed up are unit scores. As per my suggestion, military scores would be buffed to 202.5/city at max army. At a standard 0251 however, the score would be lower at around 120 score in total.

Regarding resistance: I know your concern is people being sat on, but I don't think that your proposed resistance change would stop that because of beige cycling. I believe there are better alternatives that can be made to the beige mechanics instead of tweaking the numbers of resistance. Just as an example, someone proposed the guarantee of beige at the end of expired wars for the person with the least resistance. Although, I forgot to mention missiles and nukes, they would need to be changed as well.

Regarding score changes: In my first post I said to modify city score "and/or" fix the unit scores. However, changing the numbers no matter how it's done, will essentially bring the system closer to what it once was, hence why I said to revert it altogether. The old score system was hardly a problem, most of the wild downdeclares could be faulted on the recipient because they inflated their score. Ignoring that, the downdeclare could be taken care of if proper counters were dispatched.

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hime-sama said:

Regarding resistance: I know your concern is people being sat on, but I don't think that your proposed resistance change would stop that because of beige cycling.

Beige cycling wont be possible. You WILL need atleast 3 people to almost reach zero a person. And to do that, you will need to bring him down to 90 resistance per member. And that all happens in 32 turns(26 counting the 6 you start with)

6 hours ago, Hime-sama said:

changing the numbers no matter how it's done, will essentially bring the system closer to what it once was,

Not true. 

Earlier, the ratio of city to military max score was way higher at almost 1:4

With the system I am proposing, the new ratio will be 1:2

This puts cities as a stronger measure of score than it previously was

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AntMan said:

Beige cycling wont be possible. You WILL need atleast 3 people to almost reach zero a person. And to do that, you will need to bring him down to 90 resistance per member. And that all happens in 32 turns(26 counting the 6 you start with)

Not true. 

Earlier, the ratio of city to military max score was way higher at almost 1:4

With the system I am proposing, the new ratio will be 1:2

This puts cities as a stronger measure of score than it previously was

re Beige cycling: Two things, your numbers are based on someone being max military at the start, which is improbable because running max ships is unwise and so that will free up a lot of resistance. Secondly, what does this do for harpooning whales? If you updeclare on a bigger nation (whale), you will run out of resistance before you can zero them.

re Score: I said changing the numbers brings it "closer" to the old system, which is true unless you increase city score, exacerbating the issues seen already. As I said though, the old score formula was hardly a problem, and due to the change to how GC works, submarine tactics are less effective since you cannot do a ground double buy to reduce your opponent's airforce by 33%. There were, of course, some problematic downdeclares like city 30's hitting city 12's, but like a 60% city downdeclare against a reasonably milled target is a nonissue (assuming the attacker is ZM or close to).

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hime-sama said:

re Beige cycling: Two things, your numbers are based on someone being max military at the start, which is improbable because running max ships is unwise and so that will free up a lot of resistance. Secondly, what does this do for harpooning whales? If you updeclare on a bigger nation (whale), you will run out of resistance before you can zero them.

Lets say the target is only running max planes. With the previous system it would take around 8 strikes to take down the planes completely(since you will strike air only. My previous calculations were based on getting planes down to a reasonable number and then ASing other units). This isnt even assuming rebuys of planes which would add another 4 overall hits. This is 3 airstrikes per person or dragging to 64 resistance. With this system however, this is reduced to 45 resistance which is still around 20 resistance killed than from previous systems.
 

1 hour ago, Hime-sama said:

re Score: I said changing the numbers brings it "closer" to the old system, which is true unless you increase city score, exacerbating the issues seen already. As I said though, the old score formula was hardly a problem, and due to the change to how GC works, submarine tactics are less effective since you cannot do a ground double buy to reduce your opponent's airforce by 33%. There were, of course, some problematic downdeclares like city 30's hitting city 12's, but like a 60% city downdeclare against a reasonably milled target is a nonissue (assuming the attacker is ZM or close to).

Submarine tactics are actually better now. I'd like to point out that with the casualties not being nerfed at all, a whale double buying soldiers only and suiciding into someone with max tanks will kill over 500 tanks per hit. This is way more than what a airstrike currently can take out.
What we need to do is make city score more relevant rather than nerfing military score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AntMan said:

Lets say the target is only running max planes. With the previous system it would take around 8 strikes to take down the planes completely(since you will strike air only. My previous calculations were based on getting planes down to a reasonable number and then ASing other units). This isnt even assuming rebuys of planes which would add another 4 overall hits. This is 3 airstrikes per person or dragging to 64 resistance. With this system however, this is reduced to 45 resistance which is still around 20 resistance killed than from previous systems.
 

Submarine tactics are actually better now. I'd like to point out that with the casualties not being nerfed at all, a whale double buying soldiers only and suiciding into someone with max tanks will kill over 500 tanks per hit. This is way more than what a airstrike currently can take out.
What we need to do is make city score more relevant rather than nerfing military score.

That doesn't answer the question about harpooning whales though, and personally, I think there should be some breathing room for resistance, either for sitting, harpooning, and other circumstances. Otherwise you remove a lot of potential for strategy which I don't see being good for the competitiveness and the game, especially when there exists fine alternatives like guaranteed beige (as mentioned earlier).

I disagree that submarines tactics are better. In the previous system, submarines could coordinate to try and drag down a nation, but with soldier suicide as the only viable option, there is no way to drag people. Furthermore, that is a rather boring strategy to be forced upon people who are already on the losing side of a war, being sat on people of the same city count with high military, that is not good for the game. Also, if my math is correct, a city 20 like me can destroy on average 700 tanks per airstrike, and a double buy of soldiers going into max soldiers and (even some) tanks will not likely IT or even MS, you will probably not kill as many tanks as you say.

 

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Fireborn said:

Here's the thing. Planes have been far too OP for far too long. People have known this and have wanted it fixed for a long time. So why are you complaining now that it's fixed?

Because they made the tanks the new planes. 
Planes were an all powerful unit but now tanks are the all powerful units.

In the previous system, it was still possible to kill the planes but in this, you cannot even kill the tanks which is infinitely frustrating.

Added with the score changes, this makes sitting on an opponent very easy, forcing Dial Up like war situations more into the game.

In fact, the only ones I've seen supporting the change are ex-IQ and the new IQ ie Swamp. 
This update massively benefits the 100+ member alliances and literally destroys the alliances with smaller counts.
It only benefits older alliances with massive stockpile while throwing any new alliance into the gutter.

Hence, if you are supporting these changes, you should get ready to be sat on by hoards while being able to do nothing but delete and quit the game.

Edited by AntMan
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the changes are good.  Some probably need tweaking.

I wish the poll had more than two options.  In general one reason Alex doesn't just poll the community and go with that is that there is almost always a knee jerk reaction against changes.  Here and in real life, it's a lot easier to oppose change than support it and people who oppose change are usually going to be the most vocal.  There's a psychological bias in favor of loss aversion.

Edited by Azaghul
  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Azaghul said:

Most of the changes are good.  Some probably need tweaking.

I wish the poll had more than two options.  In general one reason Alex doesn't just poll the community and go with that is that there is almost always a knee jerk reaction against changes.  Here and in real life, it's a lot easier to oppose change than support it and people who oppose change are usually going to be the most vocal.  There's a psychological bias in favor of loss aversion.

When over 60% of the active community is saying the changes are bad, there must be something wrong with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2020 at 11:29 PM, AntMan said:

When over 60% of the active community is saying the changes are bad, there must be something wrong with it. 

"parts of the new update be rolled back" =/= "the changes are bad"

  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

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.