Jump to content

Declare Range Modifiers


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Borg said:

In the c1-10 range, buying cities isn't a too uncommon strategy. There would be issues if the modifier is determined upon declaration and the nation buys cities.

Yes, this is true. A nation I attacked once bought five cities and gave them all 5/5/5/3 military builds (taking them from a c5 to c10). If a nation does this, it would change the modifier, which could be unfair toward the aggressor.

 

never mind, disregard this reply

Edited by Nyx

This is a signature.

That's all I have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

This essentially penalises players who optimise their city growth whilst rewarding these who are less efficient in growing their nations.

I'd rather you limit people to attacking targets with the exact same amount of cities instead of implementing this idea (which is also a terrible idea I might add).

Limiting declare ranges with a hard bottom declare range was discussed in the past:
 

 

  • Upvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Limiting declare ranges with a hard bottom declare range was discussed in the past:
 

 

It would be a better system than imposing a penalty upon subsequent city purchases. 

All this does is strengthen up-declares and weaken down declare counters against up-declaring nations.

Edited by Charles Bolivar
  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Charles Bolivar said:

It would be a better system than imposing a penalty upon subsequent city purchases. 

All this does is strengthen up-declares and weaken down declare counters against up-declaring nations.

Yes, it does both of those things. That is the point of the change. It does not strengthen or weaken them beyond the benefit of having more cities.

The only thing being reduced is the rate of kills/deaths being inflicted. If someone does up declare, the higher city nation gets no reduction against the nation attacking them, the attacker only gets the buff. If the nation down declares it only receives the reduction, the smaller nation does not get the buff.

Victory rolls, unit sizes, all of these things stay intact. 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Who are these magical c40s that can hit c20s with full military?  I know I generally find myself mostly out of a fight after a round or two, and can only hit people in the mid 30s that actually rebuild military.

I mean HoF is legit doing it a lot recently.

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Who are these magical c40s that can hit c20s with full military?  I know I generally find myself mostly out of a fight after a round or two, and can only hit people in the mid 30s that actually rebuild military.

theoretically doable, but probs not likely unless you sell/lose all your infra

image.png.c4b2561521a5e173d6c4e8a8c52ee827.png

Edited by Borg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a strange, bold, potentially absurd idea:
Change the war declare score range to how they were prior to this change that caused mass-downdeclares in the first place.

Nothing was broken, and that change only make a new problem.  If a change doesn't work out - don't make even *more* changes, reverse it!

Edited by BrythonLexi
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Yes, it does both of those things. That is the point of the change. It does not strengthen or weaken them beyond the benefit of having more cities.

The only thing being reduced is the rate of kills/deaths being inflicted. If someone does up declare, the higher city nation gets no reduction against the nation attacking them, the attacker only gets the buff. If the nation down declares it only receives the reduction, the smaller nation does not get the buff.

Victory rolls, unit sizes, all of these things stay intact. 

So say 3 c25 nations declare on a c30 buddy of mine. The three attackers all get the buff against the larger nation and inflict higher casualties combined to a higher % (and the extra damage inflicted will quickly compound), but any c30 nation coming to the original c30 nation's aid in turn has penalties imposed upon them when they declare upon  and counter the c25 attacking nations. 

So what's the point of buying cities? Where is the incentive to compete via the growing of a whale tier? This is pretty much the implementation of an ingame war mechanic aimed at addressing what is an in-game economic issue which really impacts upon a few particular alliances more so than others.

Edited by Charles Bolivar

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Borg said:
  • 50% seems a bit large, maybe reduce to 25%?

The modifier only goes one way, so it's almost like it's at 25% already, the attacker gets the buff/debuff not the defending party. Lets say we use the C20 v C15 example, the 20 attacking the 15.

Currently the attacker would kill 12.5% less units in battle. Unit wise:

C20
300,000 soldiers
25,000 tanks

vs C15
225,000 soldiers
18,750 tanks

Simulating 20 times:

 

Simulations: 20 Average
Attacking Soldiers Lost: 425954 21297.69
Defending Soldiers Killed: 551095 27554.76
Attacking Tanks Lost: 28097 1404.85
Defending Tanks Destroyed: 37607 1880.35


The new total would be 24,109 soldiers killed, a difference of 3,444. And 1645 tanks, a difference of 235 tanks.

Reducing that by half isn't very impactful.

8 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

So say 3 c25 nations declare on a c30 buddy of mine. The three attackers all get the buff against the larger nation and inflict higher casualties combined to a higher % (and the extra damage inflicted will quickly compound), but any c30 nation coming to the original c30 nation's aid in turn has penalties imposed upon them when they declare upon counter the c25 attacking nations. 

So what's the point of buying cities? Where is the incentive to compete via the growing of a whale tier? This is pretty much the implementation of an ingame war mechanic aimed at addressing what is an in-game economic issue which really impacts upon a few particular alliances more so than others.

The game wanted the city score change, look in the thread I linked when quoting you before.

14 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

I have a strange, bold, potentially absurd idea:
Change the war declare score range to how they were prior to this change that caused mass-downdeclares in the first place.

Nothing was broken, and that change only make a new problem.  If a change doesn't work out - don't make even *more* changes, reverse it!

See above link comment.

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s literally 50% of the numerical city difference lol.

c20 vs c10 = 5% “nerf” on double the units; this isn’t the end of the world.

A c40 vs c28 = 6% “nerf on a nation that has something like 30% more units. I doubt this will be the breaking point for basically anyone 

Edited by His Holy Decagon
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

They do get a defensive modifier if they're declared on. Attacker getting a % reduction in damage is the same as the defender getting a % reduction in units lost.
 

Was thinking only a defensive modifier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has sparked a heavy discussion in our alliance discord. And I will say the response is 100% negative so far. 
 

This serves to only penalize alliances that put forth an effort to build their member base to effective nations rather than hoarding a bunch of rag tag small ones. 
 

This game has a pay to win system. The credits. You want to play and get there faster, fine. Pay the credits and grow your nation. But it’s not fair to the the people who have put actual effort into building their nation and cities to have their feet cut out because some lower tiered nations want to fast track to power. 

Edited by Krath
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Krath said:

This has sparked a heavy discussion in our alliance discord. And I will say the response is 100% negative so far. 
 

This serves to only penalize alliances that our forth an effort to build their member base to effective nations rather than hoarding a bunch of rag tag small ones. 
 

This game has a pay to win system. The credits. You want to play and get there faster, fine. Pay the credits and grow your nation. But it’s not fair to the the people who have put actual effort into building their nation and cities to have their feet cut out because some lower tiered nations want to fast track to power. 

You're in the almost exclusively whale alliance sphere, yes?

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Krath said:

This serves to only penalize alliances that put forth an effort to build their member base to effective nations rather than hoarding a bunch of rag tag small ones. 

You’re taking a literal single digit nerf as a reason to lump all growth into a wasteful category? You’re essentially 98% what you would be, and you think that somehow nullifies any reason to grow? Lol

A c40 hitting a c35 faces a 2.5% nerf while having 5 cities more of units. Pretty sure 0.5% per city isn’t going to make everyone stop growing

Edited by His Holy Decagon
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

I do understand how wars play out, actually. Notable down declares do happen in the blitz at the whale tier which is where this reduction will soften the kill rate on the opening salvo. After that most of the fighting back does not currently happen through units, just missiles/nukes, where this does nothing. 

This change is relatively minor, it is not game breaking. This is where you're accurate. It does actually do what I want to do, which is weaken the impact of down declares and give a buff to up declares. 

You're in the almost exclusively whale alliance sphere, yes?

So you’re saying because Guardian put forth an effort to grow a group of nations in a year and a half to high c20 and c30 they should get shafted for that? Yeah. I’m in a whale alliance sphere. But the alliance put an actual effort in to grow and train their nations. Not mindlessly recruit a bunch of people who don’t know what they’re doing, then whine because they loose the numbers game. 
 

There needs to be some restructuring on declares. But punishing the larger nations is only going to anger the player base and hurt the game. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand wanting to make being a lower tiered alliance more viable. But this is not the way to do it. This punishes alliances and nations who have spent tens of billions optimizing their tiering, and allows alliances that lack the skill and structure to optimize their tiering to compete way more effectively than they should come wartime.

Instead of something like this that penalizes nations who have put billions into growth, why not increase the point where city timers come into effect? It would make it easier for alliances to get their members into a competitive tier and wouldn't penalize the people who have already done that.

  • Upvote 2

unknown_3_1_65.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Keegoz said:

I find it insane that a partially milled c20ish nation can be hit by a fully milled c40 rn. More so than what you are suggesting.

I think adjusting score properly would have the desired outcome here, rather than a debuff or buff based on city count.

 

I don't want to change the core war mechanics to better favor smaller nations, I just want a balanced system where there are fair war ranges and beige actually gives reprieve.

Growth, economics, tiering, and effort should be rewarded not "balanced out" imo.

Edited by Marika
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Keegoz said:

We floated the idea and there was backlash against hard caps. We therefore explored softer caps.

I find it insane that a partially milled c20ish nation can be hit by a fully milled c40 rn. More so than what you are suggesting.

Reducing the impact of infra on score seems to be a much easier solution. They already increased score for mil. The problem you speak of is usually because folks believe it frugal to build 3k infra cities. I think exposing yourself to larger Downdecs is an appropriate risk for building so much infra. Otherwise, in “fixing” downdecs we give a massive buff to econ and probably alter the standard infra build meta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, His Holy Decagon said:

You’re taking a literal single digit nerf as a reason to lump all growth into a wasteful category? You’re essentially 98% what you would be, and you think that somehow nullifies any reason to grow? Lol

A c40 hitting a c35 faces a 2.5% nerf while having 5 cities more of units. Pretty sure 0.5% per city isn’t going to make everyone stop growing

Hun, you should REALLY read the OP again before you spout more nonsense. 

Its 50% of the percentage difference in cities which the OP makes VERY clear.

Gven in your example, that's still a single digit number, but it's almost 3x greater, at 6.75%. 

 

But that still doesn't matter because if you bothered reading what anyone else is saying - particularly those about the losing sides prospects - you'd see the people blitzing (likely winners) are not the ones getting [email protected]#$ed over here.

 

I down declared and doubled on some c14s last war. Fun fact, my c32 double with PB is just a tiny hair over their max. 1050 vs 1056 sorta deal. As a sphere we used attacks like these to help the low tier press up into higher updecs where we had less alive nations, as the downed whales could temporarily have the planes to do the job.

Of course the moment I did my ground and air double, I was bow in range of city 28s and the like, some of which still had over 2000 infra to go with their max military. I had about 800, by the way. 

 

So now, with your change, not only is that whole strategy useless as I would get a -22% on kills against the target, but the people I'm still forever in range of now get an extra bonus of... Oh hey it's our friend 6.75% again! That was an accident but a fun one in my quick calculator math.

 

Edit: wrote this while on page two still I see this realization came about already, oops >.<

Edited by Zei-Sakura Alsainn
  • Upvote 1
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.