Iron Dome Nonsense

[Dr James Wilson]

On 3/4/2021 at 8:04 AM, Aiya said:

As already pointed out, the vote was in favour of changing it when the poll was closed. If people knew the vote was going to spark change, then alliances would have nudged their members to vote in favour of what benefits them. The proof is in the pudding because "no change" mysteriously received a surge in votes from people largely contained in one alliance after Pre said it would result in actual change.

This comparison is also faulty because there is a big difference between 4 physical people with vastly different personalities, promises, and beliefs versus a mere 5% on these changes which likely isn't enough to magically shift someone away from wanting change altogether.

Finally, if you let those people who voted for no change cast another vote on what the percentage should be, they will inherently be united in favour of reducing it by the smallest amount possible. Conversely, those that genuinely wanted to reduce the percentage will not be (and were not) consolidated on one number and thus no good-faith or meaningful change is actually achieved, despite that being what the majority wanted and no, I'm not counting people that voted after the poll closed.

If anything at all, there could be a runoff poll containing the 3 most popular percentages among those that actually wanted the changes (25, 30, and 35) and everyone can decide between those three.

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest responses I've ever seen.   "Of course they didn't tell people the vote would matter!   If they knew that, they would have voted for the choice we didn't want to go with even harder!"

 

Frankly, the fact that you dismiss my criticism that my vote didn't count toward the game change because "it would most likely have been for the smallest change" is disgusting and indicates that you are part of the problem.   So much about this vote would have been different if people knew it would have actual weight behind it instead of just being a 'how do you feel' poll as it was presented.   You are part of the problem of the administration and development team taking absolutely nothing the community says or feels about the game into account.   You are what is wrong with Politics and War.

 

You claim the proof is that the vote surged after the thread was closed.   Why don't you care about the fact that the thread was closed before the poll was, which does nothing but imply that Pre waited for the result to be what he wanted before closing it before the poll closed.   There is an option when creating polls to close it at a specific time.   The failure to do so or indifference to its scheduled closing is despicable and completely destroys any semblance of innocence on the part of Pre.

[Majima Goro]

6 hours ago, Akuryo said:

I don't think you understand what a closed poll is. A closed poll is one in which it is no longer possible to vote.

It is called Sheepy Programming

Fun Fact: Sheepy makes up less than 1% of the nations in Orbis but is responsible for 99% of the problems in Orbis

[Guest Zephyr]

I agree the way the vote was conducted does not seem fair, despite personally favouring lowering the success rate which happens to have benefit from the odd mishandling of the vote. A better/fairer approach would have been conducting a vote to first determine if a change to the Iron Dome success rate was desired, then if that vote succeeded another vote determining what its new success rate should be (including a more extensive range of options such as 5% through 100% to cover all player interests). Probably a third vote after that with the most popular vote options. If preferential voting were an option that would be even better, though I'm guessing the forum polls aren't that complex.

[Natonito]

2 minutes ago, Zephyr said:

I agree the way the vote was conducted does not seem fair, despite personally favouring lowering the success rate which happens to have benefit from the odd mishandling of the vote. A better/fairer approach would have been conducting a vote to first determine if a change to the Iron Dome success rate was desired, then if that vote succeeded another vote determining what its new success rate should be (including a more extensive range of options such as 5% through 100% to cover all player interests). Probably a third vote after that with the most popular vote options. If preferential voting were an option that would be even better, though I'm guessing the forum polls aren't that complex.

I quite agree with you that this process would have removed the appearance of fraud and the reality of incompetence from how this has been handled.  It would have provided at least some means of building consensus rather than seeking to rig a poll.  But this sort of consensus building and genuine democratic decision-making is too advanced for the sort of people who simply want to rubber stamp their own desired changes.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

1 minute ago, Ducc Zucc said:

Infra is temporary, it seems the salt stays forever though.

 

Maybe one day you'll learn that an entire type of attack's success or failure shouldn't be based on the odds of a coinflip.

You do realize that ever type of attack in this game is based off RNG right?  Missiles and Nukes are actually the only military units in the game that you are guaranteed a hit assuming your opponent doesn't have the project to counter it.

 

[Ducc Zucc]

31 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

You do realize that ever type of attack in this game is based off RNG right?  Missiles and Nukes are actually the only military units in the game that you are guaranteed a hit assuming your opponent doesn't have the project to counter it.

 

The infrastructure and improvements destroyed for missiles/nukes is RNG as well but that is besides the point. For all the conventional attacks, an utter failure still causes damage to enemy units.

With Iron Dome as it is currently it is really just all or nothing with a missile. That's why I was all for the suggestion of Iron Dome being a flat 50% damage reduction.

But then people have a problem with resistance always being guaranteed to be lowered. I see their point and in my opinion Iron Dome should block resistance lost x% of the time but letting there be infrastructure damage caused by the missile itself always.

[Cooper_]

I don't see why it's such a problem for people to do more damage when they get dogpiled.  If all this does is incentivize pixel-huggers to think more carefully about how not-so-easy their planned 3 vs 1 is, then it's doing the right job.  If you win or lose, war isn't supposed to be painless.  There's a large difference between "loser weapons" and wanting to hide scot-free at 8k score with full military and 3k infrastructure.  You can rebuild like everybody else...

Mechanics should be there to make wars interesting for all combatants, and they should allow everyone to make some ground if they're willing to fight for it.  With all of the other changes making it easier to attrition a weaker opponent, this is among the mildest of tweaks that could've been made for a nation losing bc of out-tiering or dogpiling.  

Also, afaik Yarr/Pre are among the people who tend to hide at high scores, so this doesn't make sense that he's doing this from a personal motivation.  The attacks I've seen seem to be in pretty bad faith.  Frankly, I thought pre's personal interests would've resulted in him scrapping the results because of how close it was.  I'm glad he went with the majority view.

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Cooper_
Grammar

[Deborah Kobayashi]

On 3/3/2021 at 5:29 PM, Dr James Wilson said:

Huh.   Alright, sorry for that then.   My other point stands however.   The Iron Dome is now a waste of a project slot at 30% when its better spent on an economic or other war project.   

Why would I waste a project slot on a 30% chance of stopping an attack that will destroy what, 300-500 infra and maybe an improvement?   

And why did this end up being the deciding vote on implementing this?   If this was going to actually change a game mechanic why wasn't that made clear when voting?   Everyone that voted for no change is automatically excluded from getting to vote on what they think the change should be?   If it's going to change, I don't think it should be change to 30% but I didn't get to say what I think because I voted no change. 

same i would vote no change and think 30 is to low, 33 would be an understandable number, but very low and id prefer 40% or 45%

Edited March 6, 2021 by Deborah Kobayashi

[Deborah Kobayashi]

the second poll should be redone if the first poll is what they are going with, everyone should agree on the change amount

Edited March 6, 2021 by Deborah Kobayashi

[BowShot118]

The real problem with this is that RNG is still a factor in Iron Dome

 

RNG is just dumb smh

[redcurrantes]

On 3/4/2021 at 6:36 AM, Dr James Wilson said:

That's bullshit.   You're making assumptions about how people will vote which is basically saying you'll do what you think it best and this didn't matter.

If it's going to change, I should get to vote what I think it is like the other half of the people who voted for their percentage.   Not that I miss out because you are assuming how I would have voted otherwise. drift boss

Given the quantity of damage they cause, the opposition they encounter, and how inexpensive they are, missiles need to be severely weakened. However, without any planned improvements to how they operate in battle, strengthening missiles would render a project essentially useless. A move to 30% isn't even actually supported by the vote, unless you want to try to cherry-pick the results to make it appear as though there was widespread support.

Edited October 3, 2022 by redcurrantes