Double rss price of nukes/missiles

[Sam Cooper]

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

“Opportunity costs” are subjective per person.

so is the damage incurred by the nukes, what's your point?

your ability to nuke gets better with city count, but so does the target's ability of soaking the damage.

In lower city counts, the attacker takes more risk going the nuke path and he gets more reward as the targets he can hit have low income and suffer more. In higher city counts the risk is less for the attacker but the reward also goes down since his nuke will barely do a day's worth of income in damage at best.

I'll make it even easier to understand, look at these 2 things here:

1. the cost of a nuke stays the same while income of attacker increases (kind of, because generally he'd have no infra) with his city count, this is your point of complain, this helps the attacker.

2. the damage dealt by a nuke also stays the same while income goes for the target with his city count, you are ignoring this, this helps the target.

if you're still not convinced I can give you some numbers.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

5 hours ago, Buorhann said:

“Opportunity costs” are subjective per person.

...no. Being rolled/low infra, as an objective matter, does present an opportunity cost, by virtue of money not made that way.

It can be offset by whether that person is raiding or not, and money they extract from turreting. The former can very much be more profitable than farming, while the latter doesn't seem to be (especially if it's coming at the expense of raiding, though some of those Arrgh contracts seemed profitable enough).

Whether those people care about this opportunity cost is another matter (evidently they're unfazed by it), and it is this indifference to it what makes it strong. But "You're missing out on x revenue by not farming" is well, a constant. More applicable to turrets than raiders, but turret is the point of discussion here.

5 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Cycling comes at a risk, as I already explained in the post you quoted.  Plus randoms coming in and ruining said cycling is an issue too.

As I said, if the guy is hitting several people then it is unrealizable. If he's hitting just a few within the same sphere it isn't that complicated.

As for risks; on the nuke war, the guy needs four nukes landing out of 5. This is a likely beige (you can nuke beige someone from daily production). On the missile wars, they need to land six of the eight missiles they can launch total. The thing about missiles is that at the base rate of one, you can't beige someone off of daily production. Granted, it is easy enough to build 2-3, but this does mean that not all of those wars will be beigable. It the guy can accrue six days of beige, it does mean that the cycle attempt will fail. If not, then he should be cycleable.

Eating a beige is basically a judgement call of whether you would rather eat some damage upfront so you can work towards permanently shutting down the guy, or keep eating the daily damage. If the guy is warring several people where you can't coordinate to starve him out then eating a beige doesn't make sense. Neither does if the guy is just making the rounds and is likely to just focus on someone else. If he's there set to turret you for months, then it might be worth biting that bullet if it can mitigate damages long term.

As for loot; I don't see why people should be carrying enough to where it'd replenish his WC if they're expecting to be beiged. You know from the get go that you can be beiged nearly four days into a turret war, there's no surprise element there.

6 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Nukes and missiles shouldn’t be nerfed, but the mechanics behind it needs to be tweaked.  I have a few ideas, such as tweaking beige, imposing a certain infra level, etc.  Of course I’m looking at these as an overall thing (such as how it’d affect them during a GW, not just raiding/griefing).

I don't think that requiring a certain infra level would do much (though I wouldn't mind it); it'd kill that 0/0 gig, but at that point you're birthing an autarky turret that is better still.

The problem with the mechanics is that you're likely targeting something else in the process. Beige is obviously going to affect wars and is an extremely contentious subject, going after the improvement slots would also affect raiders and if not done in a specific way, people losing wars. Walking back the updeclare range would specifically target turrets, but that one got added with the explicit intent of allowing whales to be targeted (which it succeeds at), so that's unlikely to change.

Adjusting costs would disproportionately affect turrets dedicated to the niche since it'd be a compounding cost to them, but I doubt that it'd deter them, and do question as to whether making turreting more difficult is the better avenue than making it less effective.

 

[Sir Scarfalot]

On 5/23/2024 at 12:14 AM, Sam Cooper said:

In lower city counts, the attacker takes more risk going the nuke path and he gets more reward as the targets he can hit have low income and suffer more. In higher city counts the risk is less for the attacker but the reward also goes down since his nuke will barely do a day's worth of income in damage at best.

If you can do a day's worth of income in damage twice per day, you do see how much that actually is, right? If each nuke does a full day’s worth of damage, then a turret alliance can shut down the growth of an alliance that’s twice their size. That’s no small amount of damage.

Edited May 25, 2024 by Sir Scarfalot

[Sam Cooper]

On 5/24/2024 at 10:23 AM, Sir Scarfalot said:

If you can do a day's worth of income in damage twice per day, you do see how much that actually is, right?

one per day - takes 12 MAPs. 2 will take 2 people
In any case, that in itself is no argument, debate is not about whether someone should be losing a day's income or not because people do, very often and much more than a day's income. It was about the cost to inflict that damage which I have already said (proved?) is quite high already if the attacker wants to be in a position to take practically no losses. Attacker not losing anything is because he didn't have anything to begin with, it's an illusion, you can also zero your losses by not having infra, at which point I may argue to buff the nukes since they're not doing any damage anymore and that argument would still make more sense than whatever is being discussed here.
Even if I were to consider your "it's too op to be able to kill one day's income" it simply does not happen often enough to be worth any concern, the top 100 most nuked nations, the most extreme example you could possibly take, ate a nuke every 21.73 days on an average. Most of which are eaten during GWs so the actual impact is even lower, and again this is for the 100 most nuked nations, for the average guy it's non existent.
If you're interested in numbers:

most frequently nuked guy is ironically a pirate.

maybe later I'll delve further into numbers.

[Sir Scarfalot]

1 hour ago, Sam Cooper said:

one per day - takes 12 MAPs. 2 will take 2 people
In any case, that in itself is no argument, debate is not about whether someone should be losing a day's income or not because people do, very often and much more than a day's income. It was about the cost to inflict that damage which I have already said (proved?) is quite high already if the attacker wants to be in a position to take practically no losses. Attacker not losing anything is because he didn't have anything to begin with, it's an illusion, you can also zero your losses by not having infra, at which point I may argue to buff the nukes since they're not doing any damage anymore and that argument would still make more sense than whatever is being discussed here.
Even if I were to consider your "it's too op to be able to kill one day's income" it simply does not happen often enough to be worth any concern, the top 100 most nuked nations, the most extreme example you could possibly take, ate a nuke every 21.73 days on an average. Most of which are eaten during GWs so the actual impact is even lower, and again this is for the 100 most nuked nations, for the average guy it's non existent.
If you're interested in numbers:

most frequently nuked guy is ironically a pirate.

maybe later I'll delve further into numbers.

Two nukes built per day means two targets can be nuked using two separate wars, since each war gets its own MAPs. Go learn how to war

And again, if each nuke does one full day's income worth of damage then that completely nullifies the targets' growth, at virtually zero cost to the attacker. And your counter argument is literally that one simply shouldn't have infra so it can't be nuked? Mate, you can't claim that turretting is underpowered when by your own arguments it demonstrably isn't. I'm not saying it's OP, but you're certainly making a good case that it is.

[Sam Cooper]

32 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

completely nullifies the targets' growth, at virtually zero cost to the attacker. And your counter argument is literally that one simply shouldn't have infra so it can't be nuked?

unironically yes, if you think it's a zero cost endeavor you can also have zero rebuild cost by never rebuilding, effectively taking zero damage.
If that doesn't explain what I'm trying to convey then I guess I am lost as to what even your point is. Attacker bears virtually zero cost by having virtually no income, if that's acceptable to you then I can also argue the defender can simply not rebuild to have same virtually zero cost of eating a nuke. Logic checks out.

[Keegoz]

Personally I support an increase in nuke cost (not sure about double but maybe a 25%-50% resources increase), I think missiles should stay the same. Missiles have become less effective, and it wouldn't be bad for them to be seen as a more cheap but effective option to deal damage.

[Tartarus]

On 5/26/2024 at 7:23 PM, Keegoz said:

Personally I support an increase in nuke cost (not sure about double but maybe a 25%-50% resources increase), I think missiles should stay the same. Missiles have become less effective, and it wouldn't be bad for them to be seen as a more cheap but effective option to deal damage.

Ngl I’d disagree on them becoming less effective with the changes to Iron Dome

 

Targeting improvs is a great feature