Jump to content
Roberts

Retune score, again

Recommended Posts

I'd be in support of this, hopefully it'd address the new issues caused by the recent score change while also still addressing the issues that change aimed to correct. Thanks for making the suggestion @Roberts.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alex any word on the feasibility of this suggestion

Share this post


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

 Lower the score of each city (instead of 100, make it 75 maybe) or return the $ to the people who want to get down to a certain city. There could be a city threshold that is acceptable to receive a refund, for example c26 and above and there could be a timelimit for when people could ask for an refund. For example one week.

What if it was a 50% refund or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2020 at 10:59 AM, Vein said:

@Alex Hey, Dont you think its unfair to have changed the city score after the people who have worked their ass of to get to a certain city tier with no warnings or whatsoever? for example, the current people at 30+ cities or even myself at city 37 only have specific alliances/targets that i could fight meaning the targets i could war with has drastically lowered. I wouldn't like to be stuck fighting the same alliances/people over and over again, sure it would of been fine if we got to a high city tiering after u made the change, but dont you think its unfair for those people who already were at 30+ cities for you just to change the amount of people we could war with out of nowhere? sure there is the option of deleting cities, but thats not really fair as we've spent a lot of time and $ to get to where we are at now so I have 2 suggestions. Lower the score of each city (instead of 100, make it 75 maybe) or return the $ to the people who want to get down to a certain city. There could be a city threshold that is acceptable to receive a refund, for example c26 and above and there could be a timelimit for when people could ask for an refund. For example one week.

I mean it probably is unfair, but by that logic every change to the game is unfair and therefore I shouldn't change the game ever. And I hope you'd agree that that wouldn't be good for the game.

Every change is going to have some winners and some losers, but the way I see it is that as long as the changes are motivated with the game's best interests (attracting and retaining more players, maximizing the amount of fun that the game is, etc.) then it's a necessary evil of the game's development.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alex said:

I mean it probably is unfair, but by that logic every change to the game is unfair and therefore I shouldn't change the game ever. And I hope you'd agree that that wouldn't be good for the game.

Every change is going to have some winners and some losers, but the way I see it is that as long as the changes are motivated with the game's best interests (attracting and retaining more players, maximizing the amount of fun that the game is, etc.) then it's a necessary evil of the game's development.

i agree that this kind of stuff shouldn't stop you from making changes that you find will improve the game. However, there is clearly ways of going through with those changes without punishing people for what was previously correct play. Giving a 1 week period for people to sell their cities for the full purchase price as Vein has proposed would be a pretty easy way to save people from feeling like they spent 10b in a stupid way. Then a week later the game mechanics would return to normal, cities would only be destroyable not sellable, the changes would be through as you wanted and nobody would have to feel like a victim and complain about it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dryad said:

i agree that this kind of stuff shouldn't stop you from making changes that you find will improve the game. However, there is clearly ways of going through with those changes without punishing people for what was previously correct play. Giving a 1 week period for people to sell their cities for the full purchase price as Vein has proposed would be a pretty easy way to save people from feeling like they spent 10b in a stupid way. Then a week later the game mechanics would return to normal, cities would only be destroyable not sellable, the changes would be through as you wanted and nobody would have to feel like a victim and complain about it.

I don't disagree with you, but it does set a precedent that for every change anyone who ends up being a "loser" because of it needs to be compensated, which will seriously slow down development progress on the game and probably lead to more accusations of bias / unfairness in the future.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I don't disagree with you, but it does set a precedent that for every change anyone who ends up being a "loser" because of it needs to be compensated, which will seriously slow down development progress on the game and probably lead to more accusations of bias / unfairness in the future.

Then i think compensating being difficult is a problem by itself. What if lets say you were to code a checkbox that if you tick it enables a mode ingame where people can sell their cities, and if you untick it the game returns to normal. You could be reusing that for any future game update that involves selling cities as a means of compensation and every time it would only take you a second to tick the checkbox. I honestly think developing means to easily compensate would absolutely be worth developing by themselfes and I do think ideally losers of a change should always be compensated. Ultimately you are doing development on the game to improve it, but if the ongoing development on the game by itself makes the game worse then that's extremely counterproductive imo.

Edited by Dryad
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Alex said:

I mean it probably is unfair, but by that logic every change to the game is unfair and therefore I shouldn't change the game ever. And I hope you'd agree that that wouldn't be good for the game.

Every change is going to have some winners and some losers, but the way I see it is that as long as the changes are motivated with the game's best interests (attracting and retaining more players, maximizing the amount of fun that the game is, etc.) then it's a necessary evil of the game's development.

I see where you are coming from, but it's not really reasonable nor make any sense to use that argument in this situation. This case is special because it involves billions of dollar, so the precedent would only be that you compensate stuff if it involves billions. 

And lets be honest, this was no small nor your usual "change" to the game where the "losers" would want to be compensated. This is a completely different situation where the change to the game was a major change in the past few years.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alex said:

Every change is going to have some winners and some losers, but the way I see it is that as long as the changes are motivated with the game's best interests (attracting and retaining more players, maximizing the amount of fun that the game is, etc.) then it's a necessary evil of the game's development.

I don't think it needs to be a necessary evil. Your goal of game development as you said is to retain more players, and I really think that should be inclusive of your dedicated, long term players as well; the game needs the old to teach the new, and the game needs the new in order to continue thriving. Changes that push away your older players should not be considered a "necessary evil" in my opinion.

Edited by Hime-sama
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2020 at 11:04 PM, Grave said:

Your city count is the ultimate determinant of your maximum Military capabilities.

 

The same alliance who has been bullying new players for years with low infra exploits and 10+ city count differences is now crying that they must fight people closer to their own city count and skill level. 

Cry me river, lmao 

I wouldn't really call raiding bullying. In fact it's one of the most fun ways to play the game imo. It's just a shame that so many recent changes discourage it.

On 7/14/2020 at 4:15 AM, Akuryo said:

No, he's just an idiot who thinks he knows anything because TI doesn't have literally any other option for milcom, lol.

Are you literally incapable of offering any criticism without resorting to name calling and ooc attacks? And before you pull up some quote of me launching personal attacks on you, literally the first thing you ever said to me was to shut up and delete my forum account. God help any alliance that makes you FA.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alex said:

I mean it probably is unfair, but by that logic every change to the game is unfair and therefore I shouldn't change the game ever. And I hope you'd agree that that wouldn't be good for the game.

Every change is going to have some winners and some losers, but the way I see it is that as long as the changes are motivated with the game's best interests (attracting and retaining more players, maximizing the amount of fun that the game is, etc.) then it's a necessary evil of the game's development.

 

10 hours ago, Alex said:

I don't disagree with you, but it does set a precedent that for every change anyone who ends up being a "loser" because of it needs to be compensated, which will seriously slow down development progress on the game and probably lead to more accusations of bias / unfairness in the future.

The problem alex, is that its clear as day some of the recent changes are not really motiated by the game's "best interests". Rather (and im referring to your random removal of beige and subsequent scramble to make prefontaine develop an overcomplicated, flawed system which will cost many man hours only to turn out defective). You chose to remove beige because you had trouble outlining the rules and could not be arsed to consistently moderate the grey area surrounding the mechanic. Funnily enough, it was a strategic layer which has now been effectively removed from the game. Reinstate it, and improve (delegate if you dont want to do it yourself) the rules and application of said rules surrounding the feature. That'd be an infinitely better improvement to the game than the crap that's being cocked up by your little focus group.

8 hours ago, Akuryo said:

God help any alliance that lets you in. Imagine thinking things through or seeing that most people get actual criticism before continuing to ignore and act stupid, and I stop trying.

Go cry in a corner and continue to be clueless, nobody cares.

Have a snickers.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Avatar Patrick said:

I wouldn't really call raiding bullying. In fact it's one of the most fun ways to play the game imo. It's just a shame that so many recent changes discourage it.

 

 

I didn't call rading in itself bullying, but when you've played for a year or more and can only compete with people who can't fight back (not talking inactives) and dont understand the game at all, it's rather pathetic (and counter-prodcutive to playerbase growth) and kinda bullying.

Edited by Grave
Removed the part of the quote that wasn't about me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Roberts said:

Can we please stay on topic? One fix at a time.

 

@Alex @Prefontaine @Changeup @dev team

 

Any update on the status of this suggestion?

It seems likely that the military score changes will be made, unclear on city score though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Roberts said:

Can we please stay on topic? One fix at a time.

 

@Alex @Prefontaine @Changeup @dev team

 

Any update on the status of this suggestion?

I think the consensus was to roll with the changes (but leave city score be) but everything thinks this should not be a standalone change, it should happen along with whatever other changes may take place in regard to the war system.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

The problem alex, is that its clear as day some of the recent changes are not really motiated by the game's "best interests". Rather (and im referring to your random removal of beige and subsequent scramble to make prefontaine develop an overcomplicated, flawed system which will cost many man hours only to turn out defective). You chose to remove beige because you had trouble outlining the rules and could not be arsed to consistently moderate the grey area surrounding the mechanic. Funnily enough, it was a strategic layer which has now been effectively removed from the game. Reinstate it, and improve (delegate if you dont want to do it yourself) the rules and application of said rules surrounding the feature. That'd be an infinitely better improvement to the game than the crap that's being cocked up by your little focus group.

^ 100% Truth
 

4 hours ago, Grave said:

 

 

I didn't call rading in itself bullying, but when you've played for a year or more and can only compete with people who can't fight back (not talking inactives) and dont understand the game at all, it's rather pathetic (and counter-prodcutive to playerbase growth) and kinda bullying.

Ridiculous. Assume you are talking about yourself? Real raiders are motivated by profit not oppressing people - there is zero interest in permarolling anyone; ironically the sort of behaviour you describe is far more likely to be carried out by those in conventional AAs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I think the consensus was to roll with the changes (but leave city score be) but everything thinks this should not be a standalone change, it should happen along with whatever other changes may take place in regard to the war system.

I can understand keeping city score at 100 because it's a more attractive number. However, I would assume the proposed military score numbers were determined with the revised city score in mind, so you might want to slightly increase the proposed numbers here in order to account for the unchanging city scores and reflect what this change was set to accomplish and what people originally voted in favour of.

Edited by Hime-sama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alex said:

I think the consensus was to roll with the changes (but leave city score be) but everything thinks this should not be a standalone change, it should happen along with whatever other changes may take place in regard to the war system.

Sounds good. Just keep in mind the game doesn't wait for bulk-updates, people fight wars every day using the current score system.

 

Glad this went smoothly though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Grave said:

 

 

I didn't call rading in itself bullying, but when you've played for a year or more and can only compete with people who can't fight back (not talking inactives) and dont understand the game at all, it's rather pathetic (and counter-prodcutive to playerbase growth) and kinda bullying.

Yea I get what you mean now. Raiding active players is fun but contrary to what some may think, I don't enjoy mercilessly hitting newbs who want peace. If it's a counter or a gov member/ experienced player then I don't care but if if it's a newer player who has no interest in fighting, I usually cave in and peace if they ask for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 1:30 AM, Alex said:

I think the consensus was to roll with the changes (but leave city score be) but everything thinks this should not be a standalone change, it should happen along with whatever other changes may take place in regard to the war system.

Instead of changing scores, how about making cities destructible? If a city has zero infrastructure and less than a specified number of improvements, then the city is destroyed. In this case, the issue the op mentioned, would be solved.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I have an idea, increase down declare range to 0.66/  or even 0.6 instead of the current .75

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2020 at 10:00 PM, Alex said:

I think the consensus was to roll with the changes (but leave city score be) but everything thinks this should not be a standalone change, it should happen along with whatever other changes may take place in regard to the war system.

Do we have any idea when that's likely to be?

I'm not sure if you noticed, but there's a global NAP and it's about to end in a couple of weeks. I'm sure we'd all like to know the conditions for war before it does, and whether they'll change within the global. What I'm really asking is:

1. Are these changes likely to be made in the next 2 weeks?

2. Are they likely to be made in the following months?

3. Would changes to the war system be made while a global war is ongoing?

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.