Jump to content

Increase Updec Range


KingGhost
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Deborah Kobayashi
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.