Popular Post KingGhost Posted November 30, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted November 30, 2020 (edited) New city scores being 100 means anyone with a few cities above yours that still has very healthy infra w/ mil cannot be hit if you do not similarly have healthy infra w/ even medium military. This is an effect of the city score changes tightening the ranges both with down declares and up declares. I believe the up declare limit should be broadened to less restrict the ranges which people can war with above as it wouldn’t cause an unfair advantage militaristically to updeclare (this would only make it so people with even less cities than before can dec on the defender). It would only serve to make it so people cannot hide at high tier with ridiculously high scores. People shouldn’t be able to have the benefits of insanely high infra making money each day, having more improvements and projects without risking being able to get declared on by a losing side due to the war ranges tightening. effectively making them not risk as much with more benefits. Why is this a problem? When people are rebuilding 35 cities to 3k infra yet cannot be effectively punished by a large amount of the opposing side simply because they are out of range tells me something is wrong. to put it into perspective a similar c35 at low infra would have to build 1100 score worth of troops to even barley reach that c35 with max mil. (Max soldiers Max planes + 4000 tanks) this gap only grows larger as you have less cities than the target due to cities being weighted more than troops now, meaning you require more troops while the city scores widen the gap. I don’t believe that players should be this hard capped to declaring someone who has an advantage over them if they choose to in order to bring their infrastructure down. Another example is reaching some of the extreme whales who have over 4k infra is virtually impossible for almost all of the player base, meaning they gain the benefits of 4k infra while having LESS risk of being declared on than if they built less infra? Suggestion : +175% -> 200% Up declare range Edited November 30, 2020 by KingGhost 2 8 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfinityMastered Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 Plenty of people can target whales, they just don't because of treaties and having a partially militarized c35 with no infra hitting a fully militarized c35 with high infra doesn't make sense. The low infra c35 has nothing to lose if they play right while the fully militarized one has everything to lose. it makes sense to keep those 2 separated some and let others with similar compositions hit each other so it's more even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGhost Posted November 30, 2020 Author Share Posted November 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, InfinityMastered said: Plenty of people can target whales, they just don't because of treaties and having a partially militarized c35 with no infra hitting a fully militarized c35 with high infra doesn't make sense. The low infra c35 has nothing to lose if they play right while the fully militarized one has everything to lose. it makes sense to keep those 2 separated some and let others with similar compositions hit each other so it's more even. if you are arguing that someone should only be able to declare on whales if they have more cities than them " having a partially militarized c35 with no infra hitting a fully militarized c35 with high infra doesn't make sense." I'm just going to say this is a pretty bad mindset and frankly I believe it is incorrect. What so if one side gets burned down the ones with high infra shouldn't be able to be burned down at all? There are a lot of flaws with this logic that I could go into but I believe this won't be a point anyone will be arguing with experience so I won't. but a short explanation is, whales would literally be pseudo-immune to being declared in an actual war with your logic if they just rebuild if the other side isn't willing to throw away similar costs just to declare one or two wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfinityMastered Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 44 minutes ago, KingGhost said: if you are arguing that someone should only be able to declare on whales if they have more cities than them " having a partially militarized c35 with no infra hitting a fully militarized c35 with high infra doesn't make sense." I'm just going to say this is a pretty bad mindset and frankly I believe it is incorrect. What so if one side gets burned down the ones with high infra shouldn't be able to be burned down at all? There are a lot of flaws with this logic that I could go into but I believe this won't be a point anyone will be arguing with experience so I won't. but a short explanation is, whales would literally be pseudo-immune to being declared in an actual war with your logic if they just rebuild if the other side isn't willing to throw away similar costs just to declare one or two wars. So i said people are in range of whales but i guess you ignored what i said there and it is possible to burn the others infra, you just gotta well have something to actually burn it with. what i was saying before was it doesn’t make sense for someone with virtually no military to attack someone with max military or to give the player with nothing the ability to attack those with say 4k infra while they have only like 500 infra and a nuclear research facility. It just doesn’t seem fair in any case. you choose not to invest anything into your nation but wish for the ability to destroy everything others have invested in theirs at little to no cost to yourself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 I am good with this assuming we make it so that anyone that can updeclare on a nation can also be hit by that same nation. Smaller nations already have an advantage in numbers that makes it easy for them to take down larger nations who physically cannot preemptively defend themselves against it. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 I disagree with this. The updeclare range is pretty generous and beige often provides opportunities for a beaten down upper middle tier nation to build up enough to get in range to hit top tier nations. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted November 30, 2020 Administrators Share Posted November 30, 2020 46 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: I am good with this assuming we make it so that anyone that can updeclare on a nation can also be hit by that same nation. Smaller nations already have an advantage in numbers that makes it easy for them to take down larger nations who physically cannot preemptively defend themselves against it. I think he's specifically talking about increasing the updeclare range, and not the downdeclare range. I prefer (and have set up the game this way as a result) that it be easier to updeclare than downdeclare because IMO it is necessary to avoid long-term stagnation. If you can downdeclare on everyone that can updeclare on you, when you're on top you can just beat down anyone who is able to get close to you. That makes it easy to stay on top, and for nations and alliances to establish long-term holds on power, which is boring and bad for the game. Letting smaller nations drag down larger ones makes the game more dynamic, and creates more of a competition in the game. IMO we should have a "king of the hill" type gameplay, where everyone wants to be on top, but no one gets to have a permanent hold and so there are shifts in power. If one faction is able to dominate the game, people will give up on trying to get on top themselves and just quit. 1 2 2 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRM Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 59 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: I am good with this assuming we make it so that anyone that can updeclare on a nation can also be hit by that same nation. Smaller nations already have an advantage in numbers that makes it easy for them to take down larger nations who physically cannot preemptively defend themselves against it. An absurd idea, but this aside, imo, the updec range is good and balanced rn. If you think about it, you should be forced to mill up to nuke high city count, hence the balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRM Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 12 minutes ago, Alex said: Letting smaller nations drag down larger ones makes the game more dynamic, and creates more of a competition in the game. IMO we should have a "king of the hill" type gameplay, where everyone wants to be on top, but no one gets to have a permanent hold and so there are shifts in power. If one faction is able to dominate the game, people will give up on trying to get on top themselves and just quit. This is the case already, hence why there should be no change to either the downdec or updec ranges. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 On 11/30/2020 at 2:06 PM, Alex said: I think he's specifically talking about increasing the updeclare range, and not the downdeclare range. I prefer (and have set up the game this way as a result) that it be easier to updeclare than downdeclare because IMO it is necessary to avoid long-term stagnation. If you can downdeclare on everyone that can updeclare on you, when you're on top you can just beat down anyone who is able to get close to you. That makes it easy to stay on top, and for nations and alliances to establish long-term holds on power, which is boring and bad for the game. Letting smaller nations drag down larger ones makes the game more dynamic, and creates more of a competition in the game. IMO we should have a "king of the hill" type gameplay, where everyone wants to be on top, but no one gets to have a permanent hold and so there are shifts in power. If one faction is able to dominate the game, people will give up on trying to get on top themselves and just quit. In theory that is great, but in practice, this generally means that people just hide out of range of larger nations and pick them off one at a time. Also war isn't the place where you "catch up" to larger nations in this game, at least in terms of doing/taking damage. Worst case you do enough damage to set an average upper tier nation growth back about a month in a war. Smaller nations catch up thru smart economic policies, raiding or just completely avoiding war. But based on your game mechanics parties fighting in a war is not the place were the little guys catch up to the bigger guys. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted December 2, 2020 Share Posted December 2, 2020 On 12/1/2020 at 3:26 PM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: In theory that is great, but in practice, this generally means that people just hide out of range of larger nations and pick them off one at a time. Also war isn't the place where you "catch up" to larger nations in this game, at least in terms of doing/taking damage. Worst case you do enough damage to set an average upper tier nation growth back about a month in a war. Smaller nations catch up thru smart economic policies, raiding or just completely avoiding war. But based on your game mechanics parties fighting in a war is not the place were the little guys catch up to the bigger guys. I actually tend to agree with this. I think PnW, as it is set up now, punishes people for growing out of the "average" range of nations in terms of warfare. Whales have more units but typically not enough to actually make a difference when you have 3 people in your defensive slots. 1 c 30 cannot hold off 3 c20's and that trend continues linearly up or down. I'd actually argue that 3 c15's might be able to bring down a c30 if they can get in range. Coordination, the blitz advantage, and the snowball effect of PnW's war system does much more for anyone fighting a war than city count ever will. tl;dr- no, do not increase updec range. It's already bad enough for larger nations which doesn't even make sense in a game context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah Kobayashi Posted December 2, 2020 Share Posted December 2, 2020 (edited) I get where bothsides are coming from on this, one side dont like people they cant hit pouncing on them when they are ready, and the other side doesnt like people inflating their score to hide out of range. Im not sure that changing the updeclare range will solve more problems than it creates, so while i like it in theory i also understand where the other side is coming from on this. An idea i had for a while that could solve some issues is that you can always declare on someone with the same city count as you, or maybe expanding the ability to declare on people close to your rank regardless of score by a few more ranks. I know these also come with unforseen issues, which is why i havent suggested them in a topic, but i think the ability to always declare on your city count could work. Edited December 2, 2020 by Deborah Kobayashi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.