City Score Changes and Attack Ranges

[Prefontaine]

THIS CHANGE DOES NOT REMOVE THE SCORE DECLARATION RANGES. IT ONLY ADDS A FLOOR THAT A NATION CANNOT SWING BELOW REGARDLESS OF SCORE.

 

Alex has agree to adjust City Count's impact on Score. Currently any city beyond the first contributes to 100 points of score. This will be reduced to 75 points. 

City score contribution was increased to help create less down declare huge gaps. To continue this while lowering City Count's impact on score a hard bottom on down declares will be implemented. That down declare cap will be calculated as follows: [ (City Count / 2) +1 ] Rounded up. Please use the poll to convey your thoughts on this change

This cannot take effect immediate as a C1 wouldn't be able to declare on a C1, and neither would a C2 be able to declare on a C1. The second poll question takes into account when this rule would come into play. Examples of how the rule would work:

C4 Capped at C3
C5 Capped at C4
C6 Capped at C4
C7 Capped at C5
C8 Capped at C5
C9 Capped at C6
C10 Capped at C6
C11 Capped at C7
C12 Capped at C7
C13 Capped at C8
C14 Capped at C8
C15 Capped at C9
C16 Capped at C9
C17 Capped at C10
C18 Capped at C10
C19 Capped at C11
C20 Capped at C11

Etc...

Edited January 20, 2022 by Prefontaine

[Monti]

chillin till the storm comes

[KillzBob]

This about to get good.

[Chad]

This is going to be a a fun read already have my hazmat suit on.

[Rewan Demontay]

I'm fairly confident that the propsed change to city score contribution will be dragged out to the muddle of the desert and shot in the head.

[Prefontaine]

1 minute ago, Rewan Demontay said:

I'm fairly confident that the propsed change to city score contribution will be dragged out to the muddle of the desert and shot in the head.

It's been regularly asked for by some people. It's the reason for this thread, to see how the people who didn't care about the increase from 50 -> 100 years ago feel about reducing that change some.

[Adrienne]

All for lowering the score from 100 to 75. I think the cap is a bad idea though. While it's daunting, sure, to be declared on by a significantly larger nation, it's really not generally as frightening in reality as it sounds, as that nation generally had to be zeroed to get that low and their double buy is often just barely enough to put them on par militarily with who they're attacking AT MOST (oftentimes, it's still less), with daily buy limits and reduced military buys because of low infra. It's not generally as big an issue as it is made out to be.

[KindaEpicMoah]

I'm personally split on the matter of a downdeclare cap and might change my mind on it later, but I'd prefer it to be either [(city count/2) rounded up] or [(city count/2)+1], instead of being both. 

As for the matter of when the cap should be implemented, I suggested city 10 to keep it standardized with the other effects that come into play at city 10 (like city timers). 

Edited January 20, 2022 by KindaEpicMoah

[Isjaki]

Screw bloc narratives and other considerations, I support any measure that makes this game harder for pixel huggers. Yes to score being revised to 75 from 100, no to downdeclare cap.

[Adrienne]

38 minutes ago, KindaEpicMoah said:

As for the matter of when the cap should be implemented, I suggested city 10 to keep it standardized with the other effects that come into play at city 10 (like city timers). 

I still think the cap is a bad idea, but if it does happen, agreed on the consistency front.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

my blatantly self serving suggestion is to have a hard cap updeclare range.  screw you little nations trying to nip at my heels, you want to hit me you better have 28-30+ cities. 

In a more serious addition, as i posted about a week or two ago, i would like to see an increase in being able to attack the ±10 nations closest to you in score. i would like to see it increased so you can hit the nearest 50 nations above and below you.  It will help make it harder for large nations to build out of range in a war. 

can you include a no opinion for each of your questions, I personally dont care about question 1 or 2, but i have to put an answer in, which will skew your results.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Sweeeeet Ronny D

[Vemek]

The cap doesn't really help with downdecs in the tiers where they are impactful, a C17 being capped to C10 downdecs is not impactful in any way when at the same time a C40 is capped at declaring on a C21 and anything above. The cap as it is proposed is not decreasing the power of downdecs in a meaningful way unless it's scaled differently.

Given the downdec cap in it's current proposed state is redundant I also don't think the decrease in city score is warranted either, especially given downdecs are still alive and well so I don't see an 'issue' being solved or an improvement of gameplay in such a change.

[Dream]

I don't quite understand the point of capping or decreasing city score. In my opinion, it doesn't really solve the issue for which it has been proposed.

For instance, a C30 would still be able to downdecc on a C16. Seeing the current way the declarations are being capped, whats the point of reducing score of a city in the first place. As far as I can comprehend, it wouldn't really change the range of downdecc (only updeccs) so, I see no reason for it to be reduced. 

[Sam Cooper]

Remove the cap on updeclares so I can reach you, thx.

[Denison]

How to get a biased poll in one image. I ain't voting for any of the number 2 options. 

[Adrienne]

43 minutes ago, Denison said:

How to get a biased poll in one image. I ain't voting for any of the number 2 options. 

Vote. The second question has a very important "if".

[Ayayay]

This has been suggested multiple times for years and every time the majority is against it for good reason. 

[Autumn Annayah]

5 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

THIS CHANGE DOES NOT REMOVE THE SCORE DECLARATION RANGES. IT ONLY ADDS A FLOOR THAT A NATION CANNOT SWING BELOW REGARDLESS OF SCORE.

 

Alex has agree to adjust City Count's impact on Score. Currently any city beyond the first contributes to 100 points of score. This will be reduced to 75 points. 

City score contribution was increased to help create less down declare huge gaps. To continue this while lowering City Count's impact on score a hard bottom on down declares will be implemented. That down declare cap will be calculated as follows: [ (City Count / 2) +1 ] Rounded up. Please use the poll to convey your thoughts on this change

This cannot take effect immediate as a C1 wouldn't be able to declare on a C1, and neither would a C2 be able to declare on a C1. The second poll question takes into account when this rule would come into play. Examples of how the rule would work:

C4 Capped at C3
C5 Capped at C4
C6 Capped at C4
C7 Capped at C5
C8 Capped at C5
C9 Capped at C6
C10 Capped at C6
C11 Capped at C7
C12 Capped at C7
C13 Capped at C8
C14 Capped at C8
C15 Capped at C9
C16 Capped at C9
C17 Capped at C10
C18 Capped at C10
C19 Capped at C11
C20 Capped at C11

Etc...

Imo After city 10 you should only be allowed to be declare 5 cities down. Otherwise you just end up with a bunch of whales getting their asses kicked and then annihilating mid tier nations with 10+ cities of military advantage. 

[Prefontaine]

4 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Vote. The second question has a very important "if".

Yes, there were complaints in a previous poll that people who voted "no" for a change and didn't vote on what the change may look like if it happened didn't get a say. That's why IF the change happens, everyone should give their input on what they think it should look like. 

[Natonito]

Then there need to be more options than what were given to make it more appealing to those who want no change at all.

[Prefontaine]

1 hour ago, Natonito said:

Then there need to be more options than what were given to make it more appealing to those who want no change at all.

I disagree. Regardless of where I stopped the numbers, the people against the concept would vote for the highest number for the starting point to diminish the effect the most. 

I could have been disingenuous and listed it as "11+" or something, and everyone who wanted higher numbers would vote that and then I could simply use 12, and technically adhere to the most popular choice. 

[Wendell]

Yes, take away another feature that makes this game dynamic. "Now you can't down declare anymore guys". What's the point of that? To try and balance a change that was unpopular to begin with? Revert the score back to 75 (like everyone suggested and downvoted as soon as Alex doubled city score) or whatever and take the L. 

Also who would vote for a hard cap on less than ten cities besides the 30 or so nubs that think nobody below city ten should raid? Imagine how much that would change alliance policy... 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Deulos

[John M Keynes]

There is already a cap on how high or low you can declare: "You can't declare war on this nation because they are outside of your war range. Your war range extends to +75% or -25% of your score. You can also always declare on nations within the next 10 ranks above you."

Therefore, this move decreases the score of a city and on top of the cap on score ranges, it also imposes a city cap regardless of your score.

For a pixelhugger, this would have less of an effect since score can also be obtained from infrastructure, military, and projects. However, this move will not decrease the ability to do downdeclares/updeclares during alliance wars. For a pirate, most of the score is composed of projects and cities. However, the cap is harmful since pirates depend on other nations for income and statpadding. This will in turn would decrease potential raiding /nuke targets. Pirates in the high tier [C20+] will be affected the most from this move.

Although I agree with the score reduction, however, I'm against imposing a city cap. Overall, I certainly believe this move will impact war dynamics in this game if passed.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Key

[Majima Goro]

I'm a bit saddened that we can't see who voted for which option like the last poll. 

6 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Yes, there were complaints in a previous poll that people who voted "no" for a change and didn't vote on what the change may look like if it happened didn't get a say. That's why IF the change happens, everyone should give their input on what they think it should look like. 

As for this, I think that the complaints were totally baseless. If I'm assuming correctly, this is the poll about the Iron Dome? If yes, then the biggest part the complainants botched up was the fact that there were two separate polls: One asking a binary question of whether you wanted a change. And the second was if there is a change, what should be the value. In part one, there were two options. In the second, there were again two options only but option 2 had 4 subparts. I really think it was a troll.

Now about the city cap on downdeclares: This might sound a lot theoritical but what if there was an alliance made up of c30s only and another with c15s only. In essense, the c30s wouldn't be able to ever declare on the c15s ever while the c15s would be able to. One might make the argument that the city counts would favour the c30s but not being able to retaliate at all, how long can the c30 hold themselves? The c15s could keep dragging down one c30 at a time for as long as they want never being retaliated against with offensive wars. 

[Koala]

The capping proposed doesn't really solve the issue of a city 30 down declaring to a city 20 or something. Reduce city score to narrow the scope of down declares so realistically it could only be a five city down declare.

Don't bother with capping cities and just reduce city score.