Feedback - Updeclare Changes & Nuke Meta

[Abaddon]

7 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

Funny. I looked at that thread and saw a total of 0 gular members posting their objections to it then. Not a single one of you posted about it when you were turreting yourself last war, now all of a sudden when the shoes on the other foot it's a problem eh? 😂

The absolute level of cope and delusion is amazing tbh.

I was one of the first people that campaigned against this change on RON for weeks when even the people that were being targeted by it (Grumpy) wouldn't speak up and defend themselves. I was against it the entire time it was being implemented, after it was implemented and have never spoken in favor of it, even when Singularity were a bunch of c30s and we were suiciding into people 10 cities higher than us. Seemingly even you guys aren't paying proper attention to your own platform.

Besides, we aren't the ones being targeted nor the ones losing infra this war so your point is moot anyway lol. A good example would be Eclipse last war, taking almost as much infra damage as the people they were handedly beating for a month.

[Tartarus]

As an addendum to this:

35 minutes ago, Abaddon said:

The absolute level of cope and delusion is amazing tbh.

I was one of the first people that campaigned against this change on RON for weeks when even the people that were being targeted by it (Grumpy) wouldn't speak up and defend themselves. I was against it the entire time it was being implemented, after it was implemented and have never spoken in favor of it, even when Singularity were a bunch of c30s and we were suiciding into people 10 cities higher than us. Seemingly even you guys aren't paying proper attention to your own platform.

Besides, we aren't the ones being targeted nor the ones losing infra this war so your point is moot anyway lol. A good example would be Eclipse last war, taking almost as much infra damage as the people they were handedly beating for a month.

 

@SleepingNinja I have no doubt you are either too dumb, or too lazy, (but lets be real, dumb) to look for it yourself, so I came with receipts. enjoy!

 

 

=======

Important break from Abaddon, here's one from your leadership

======

 

 

 

Sin's milcom high gov:

 

[Sketchy]

SleepingNinja tryna be the new Firwof I see.

[Majima Goro]

5 hours ago, Rageproject said:

You can beige someone in 6 missiles (48 maps) and 4 nukes (48 maps). 

Only if you can buy more than 1 missile a day. Unless there has been a change in the mechanics and by default you can buy 2 missiles per day with the MLP alone

[Krampus]

Unless you fix the war meta for the losing side, I don't think it's appropriate to reduce the updec range. It was increased for a reason: the biggest whales wouldn't get even slightly grazed during wartime. Now, a lot more people are in range of nukes, which makes wars not only more engaging for the losing side but also actually costly for the attacker. Reverting it would only protect those biggest whales and serve no other purpose. It should stay as high as it is; otherwise, as Hatebi said, it defeats the purpose of increasing it.

As for nukes, the increased cost is not a significant change, but this is also a band-aid solution rather than addressing the core problem. The manufacturing consumption is as low as it is because no one builds up during wartime since it's a poor way to do damage. As a side effect, only nukes are fired. If you want to increase manufacturing consumption, you should come up with ways to incentivize people to build up. A simple range change and a trivial cost increase will not get you the results you want. To be clear, I am not opposed to this cost increase; it's just a misguided way of addressing the problem.

[MBaku]

I think if you’re gonna increase nuke costs, it should be the cash value. Uranium isn’t a hurdle to building nukes for turrets, cash is. 

thoughts on $1.75m increase (plus rss) to $2m and 500 ura or just up to $2.5m?

I think another way to look at is where do we want the ROI on a nuke? Nuking 2.5k is $30m damage, 3k is $50m damage. Whats an appropriate cost to get that damage? With the 30% VDS, I think $10m per nuke is reasonable (up from about $7m now). This proposed bump still wouldnt get near that. 
 

Inflation is real, but infra costs the same. You’re really just paying for damage.  
 

 

on another note: 

With ads broken and baseball being super tedious and divorced from inflation, it would be nice to have a way to farm a modest amount of cash for people in blockade.  
 

Proposal: ability to store up to $500k in each bank. If it’s gets blown up it’s gone. If you decom it, you get the full $500k and the normal refund for building it. Or any other proposal to squirrel away some modest cash in your nation if you’re not gonna fix baseball or ads. 

[MBaku]

On the updec issue - I think 2.5x is high.

But If it’s 2x you can still hit the same guy, you just can’t do it with 50 avg infra, you build to 800 or whatever and get some soldiers for cheap score and voila. It costs money to do but I think its a fair price to nuke 3.5-4k+ infra whales instead of the normal 2.7-3k infra peasants.

The whales are irritated, but I think that’s more of a function of being in a turret meta than the score range issue. My bottom as a c40 is 4.5k score so I can hit up to 11,250. 800 infra and max soldiers puts me at 5.6k score and guess what? My max dec is 11,200. 
 

as long as nuking is the meta, I’ll pay the $20m rebuild cost to do $200m+ damage per round with my $7m nukes. 
 

 

To be clear- I agree with the spirit of 2.5x updec which is that whales shouldn’t get to easily sit out because they build to 4K infra and max mil.
 

I just think 2x solves that problem too. And if we really want to hit a 15k nation, just build some mech units then dec, decom, depo. The better way to solve their nuke issue is to fix military and get to a mil meta. Nobody is gonna 10 city updec if they’re actually trying to fight military. So people can choose strategies nuke turret 4K infra or build mil and 10 city downdec or whatever works. 

Edited October 5, 2024 by MBaku

[Stanko1987]

Keep it as it is, changing it only benefits the whales in my opinion lol. The recent up declare changes are pretty good, we shouldn't revert it back to 175% or decrease it to 200% and also Nukes have already gone up in prices, it doesn't make sense increasing the price again as the total cost for building a nuke is $7,000,000 dollars, increasing the cost makes no sense, all it does is inconveniences those that are losing the war or being slotted and dogpiled. Especially for example a C20 is being dogpilled by three C27 with full military, they will quickly destroy all your military units and your only way of best fighting back and inflicting maximum damage and making it costly to your attackers is by launching nukes and missiles. 

[Exalts]

Nukes are already quite expensive in my opinion, especially when you are losing. Take a look at some of the defeated EVH nations for reference, where most have stopped throwing nukes entirely to rely on missiles. Missiles have been eating good recently with ID being nerfed slightly, and they are so cheap.

Certainly they aren't as expensive as they used to be when everyone was smaller, but it is so easy today to also build a significant amount of infrastructure, I feel that it evens out.

 

As for the declaration range thing, I'm unqualified to state anything on that, since I do not use the upper range at all right now.

[Sir Scarfalot]

8 hours ago, Majima Goro said:

I think missiles are severly nerfed from the point of view of their MAP usage. Currently, if you have NRF, you can beige someone with 4 nukes. But if you only have MLP, you cannot beige someone with missiles only. I would like to see the cost of missiles go down to 6 MAPs or their resistance shredder go up to 20 resistance. 

This is incorrect; missiles cost 8 MAP to use and destroy 18 resistance. 18*6=108, so it takes 6 missiles to beige someone with missiles alone, which costs 6*8=48 MAP, which is less than the minimum number of action points in any given war (65 if the defender is fortress policy).

I've beiged plenty of people through missiles alone, though it involved stockpiling.

  

2 hours ago, Majima Goro said:

Only if you can buy more than 1 missile a day. Unless there has been a change in the mechanics and by default you can buy 2 missiles per day with the MLP alone

You can buy 2 missiles/day with the MLP, 3 with the space program.

Edited October 5, 2024 by Sir Scarfalot

[Shiho Nishizumi]

1 hour ago, Krampus said:

As for nukes, the increased cost is not a significant change, but this is also a band-aid solution rather than addressing the core problem. The manufacturing consumption is as low as it is because no one builds up during wartime since it's a poor way to do damage. As a side effect, only nukes are fired. If you want to increase manufacturing consumption, you should come up with ways to incentivize people to build up. A simple range change and a trivial cost increase will not get you the results you want. To be clear, I am not opposed to this cost increase; it's just a misguided way of addressing the problem.

I more or less agree with this. I'm someone who does think that turreting is overtuned at the moment. I also think that the constant nerfs to conventional military have been such to where, other than buying soldiers for easy chip damage, they're largely (if not entirely) unworthwhile to build as the losing side, especially when contrasted with turreting. Turreting is basically serving as the sole crutch (albeit it be a really good one at such) for those losing a war.

A proper fix would involve nerfing turreting a bit/some while buffing military in ways which would make it appealing to use (from a damage standpoint) as the losing side. It's tricky to find a way in which to achieve the latter, as the most straightforward ways of doing so (buffing upfront damage) is something that's been chipped away at for nearly five years now.

Increasing the (resource) cost for nukes would be fairly inoffensive in both directions, though yeah, it wouldn't meaningfully change things other than have a bit higher aluminum (or uranium, or whichever resource it is that gets increased in cost) consumption during wartime.

[Daveth]

4 hours ago, Krampus said:

Unless you fix the war meta for the losing side, I don't think it's appropriate to reduce the updec range. It was increased for a reason: the biggest whales wouldn't get even slightly grazed during wartime. Now, a lot more people are in range of nukes, which makes wars not only more engaging for the losing side but also actually costly for the attacker. Reverting it would only protect those biggest whales and serve no other purpose. It should stay as high as it is; otherwise, as Hatebi said, it defeats the purpose of increasing it.

As for nukes, the increased cost is not a significant change, but this is also a band-aid solution rather than addressing the core problem. The manufacturing consumption is as low as it is because no one builds up during wartime since it's a poor way to do damage. As a side effect, only nukes are fired. If you want to increase manufacturing consumption, you should come up with ways to incentivize people to build up. A simple range change and a trivial cost increase will not get you the results you want. To be clear, I am not opposed to this cost increase; it's just a misguided way of addressing the problem.

I actually wholeheartedly agree - so I'll piggyback Krampus taking the time to write this.

---

Reading through the thread, I'm not sure what's the point in increasing the costs marginally? To my understanding, it's a resource production and availability problem - macroeconomic, and a microeconomic change wouldn't impact it significantly?

Also, I've run into people being demotivated due to not being able to afford nukes or missiles for one reason or the other, so I'm not positive this would be clever considering they'd get further demotivated and otherwise need to make due even further. Thinking of game experience, the real headline is figuring out how to make the game more fun even if you are on the losing side of the dogpile, not what appears to be the opposite? 

Edited October 5, 2024 by Daveth

[im317]

3 hours ago, Daveth said:

I actually wholeheartedly agree - so I'll piggyback Krampus taking the time to write this.

---

Reading through the thread, I'm not sure what's the point in increasing the costs marginally? To my understanding, it's a resource production and availability problem - macroeconomic, and a microeconomic change wouldn't impact it significantly?

Also, I've run into people being demotivated due to not being able to afford nukes or missiles for one reason or the other, so I'm not positive this would be clever considering they'd get further demotivated and otherwise need to make due even further. Thinking of game experience, the real headline is figuring out how to make the game more fun even if you are on the losing side of the dogpile, not what appears to be the opposite? 

these people running out of money, are they taking any time between losing wars to get some aid well on beige? or are they declaring 3+ wars and fighting wars at all times? if they are actually taking even 24 hours with 0 wars and still cant afford nukes and missiles then the issue is with there alliance not sending them aid and not the war system.

 

people want to have it all. sit at 500-800 infra where it costs almost nothing to rebuild and still be able to afford 1-3 missiles and 1-2 nukes per day well fighting wars 100% of the time. changes that were supposed to make fighting back from the losing side of a war possible turned into doing max damage for minimum cost instead of having a chance to actually turn around the war. lets not pretend that everyone is being honest about what they want here. do i want to not get hit at all? sure, but am i upset that i was hit? no. my issue is that rogues hitting my alliance are getting those stats added to larger wars that we are not involved in to make themselves look better. people were not hitting Yarr because they wanted to hurt us specifically, otherwise they would not have been completely unwilling to keep wars with us out of the stats of larger conflicts that we are not involved in.

Edited October 5, 2024 by im317

[SleepingNinja]

11 hours ago, Tartarus said:

As an addendum to this:

 

@SleepingNinja I have no doubt you are either too dumb, or too lazy, (but lets be real, dumb) to look for it yourself, so I came with receipts. enjoy!

--snipped.

 

Cool, that's awesome. Again, why didn't any of you post your objections in the actual thread for Village to actually see? Talking about it on discord is fine and maybe Village was in those conversations, they're snips so I couldn't say without checking the log too (it's true, I'm too lazy to give a !@#$ about anything said in a news channel) it was an important enough change to actually make your opinion known at the time so where were you then?

@Sketchy Man your so right. I should definitely go through every single discord conversation ever first. 10/10.🤡

 

---

Actually on topic though, the fact is that there needs to be some kind of significant buff conventional warfare in some form of another. Which is where the focus should be. This entire conversation in my eyes is redundant and needless until there's a real change to how conventional warfare.

[Sketchy]

6 hours ago, SleepingNinja said:

@Sketchy Man your so right. I should definitely go through every single discord conversation ever first. 10/10.🤡

You talked shit without knowing what you were talking about.

Take your L. 

[Keegoz]

11 hours ago, Daveth said:

I actually wholeheartedly agree - so I'll piggyback Krampus taking the time to write this.

---

Reading through the thread, I'm not sure what's the point in increasing the costs marginally? To my understanding, it's a resource production and availability problem - macroeconomic, and a microeconomic change wouldn't impact it significantly?

Also, I've run into people being demotivated due to not being able to afford nukes or missiles for one reason or the other, so I'm not positive this would be clever considering they'd get further demotivated and otherwise need to make due even further. Thinking of game experience, the real headline is figuring out how to make the game more fun even if you are on the losing side of the dogpile, not what appears to be the opposite? 

Fixing resources isn't a one change fix all thing. I will increase costs in multiple areas.

My next proposal will also be introducing another resource sink.

[Roman von Sternberg]

How easy would it be to add costs/restrictions to NLF? Such as making the second nuke you purchase be more expensive than the first, or having NLF stop functioning if you fell below a certain level of average infra?

Because the issue with raising costs for nukes across the board is that it feels a bit like we're screwing C20s (whose loot threshold is less than the 1,750,000 currently needed to build them) for the problems of C40s with project slots to throw away on NLF lobbing endless nukes for months.

[Stanko1987]

18 minutes ago, Roman von Sternberg said:

How easy would it be to add costs/restrictions to NLF? Such as making the second nuke you purchase be more expensive than the first, or having NLF stop functioning if you fell below a certain level of average infra?

Because the issue with raising costs for nukes across the board is that it feels a bit like we're screwing C20s (whose loot threshold is less than the 1,750,000 currently needed to build them) for the problems of C40s with project slots to throw away on NLF lobbing endless nukes for months.

That is a dumb idea, it already costs 7 million dollars to build a nuke. We need to leave nukes and missiles as they are. Changing it or readjusting them makes no sense at all. 

[Roman von Sternberg]

15 minutes ago, Stanko1987 said:

That is a dumb idea, it already costs 7 million dollars to build a nuke. We need to leave nukes and missiles as they are. Changing it or readjusting them makes no sense at all. 

Are we disagreeing? I literally said that the issues with the current nuke meta are mostly restricted to whales with NLF, and it would be wise to disentangle solutions to those problems from nukes generally. I don't want to generally increase the cost of a nuke to counterbalance NLF (which I think would be disadvantageous to the low tier), I want NLF to have some kind of restrictions because it's too easy in the 40s and 50s to build two nukes with passive income + the daily log-in bonus.

[Majima Goro]

21 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

You can buy 2 missiles/day with the MLP, 3 with the space program.

Oh okay, then don't change it

[Cassius Vorenius]

On 10/5/2024 at 1:30 AM, Sketchy said:

Because it's a game. Picturing scenarios from real life was your first mistake. The game should be balanced around mechanics, not around meticulous realism. You could find 100 other glaring issues with the game that way.

I was simply curious as to why a small nation shouldn't be able to attack any large nation, but the question was answered.

[Kim]

Sometimes I wish people could just stop changing everything. All the recent changes do is benefit the big mass member alliance's. Nukes can become expensive if you are sat in a cycle blockaded. Add the fact that 80% of the nukes I build are spied away and then half don't hit anyway. 

Anyone wanting to change the game should delete their nation and start fresh without joining a mass member alliance or having any "aid" from friends. 

[Tuxedo]

I am still relative new to the game so this may have been answered before but why don't we use city count instead of instead of score for up declare and down declare limits?

 

 

Edited October 7, 2024 by Tuxedo

[Corvidae]

On 10/4/2024 at 3:30 AM, Keegoz said:

I am aware there is a desire to do more around giving options to players who are on the losing side of wars, this thread however isn't for that discussion. If you could please limit discussion to *just* the changes, that would be greatly appreciated.

Your fundamental misunderstanding is thinking that this will ever be a popular suggestion (it's like the Nth time nerfing nukes has come up) without first addressing the war system's flaws regarding options for losers.

 

You want feedback on nuke changes, the feedback is: No changes.

 

 

Also daily reminder that Hatebi causing a years-long meta debate around nukes is hilarious

 

but yeah the updeclare range went too far, real it in a bit. Maybe for once try pushing smaller changes in shorter windows though. So instead of smashing it down to 2.0, try 2.25 or even 2.35x score first. See how we feel after the first trillion-dollar war rather than wait a full year.

Edited October 7, 2024 by Alastor

[KiWilliam]

3 hours ago, Alastor said:

Your fundamental misunderstanding is thinking that this will ever be a popular suggestion (it's like the Nth time nerfing nukes has come up) without first addressing the war system's flaws regarding options for losers.

 

You want feedback on nuke changes, the feedback is: No changes.

 

 

Also daily reminder that Hatebi causing a years-long meta debate around nukes is hilarious

 

but yeah the updeclare range went too far, real it in a bit. Maybe for once try pushing smaller changes in shorter windows though. So instead of smashing it down to 2.0, try 2.25 or even 2.35x score first. See how we feel after the first trillion-dollar war rather than wait a full year.

Also I don't know how public or possible it is to discuss how **difficult** changes are, but could we not have slight adjustments on a more regular basis, so we're not trapped with whatever the current bad meta is? And could when those changes actually take effect actually be communicated well in advanced using server time instead of the system we have now.

And is it even worthwhile for me to give my personal suggestion of doing multiple rounds (see at least 2) of Test server stress testing? Including with already populated cities so we don't only test weird edge cases. Also when I don't know what changes are taking place when, or if a change is actually going to be followed up on by other changes, I would personally just ask that **no changes be made**. Do not touch the game if there will not be consistent & publicly communicated changes going forward as well. Just this person's two cents.