Tier Suggestion

[Utter Nutter]

I was thinking about the unfair advantage downdeclares have in wars and how could that be solved.

I believe we could have a simple solution to that incorporating tiers

currently we identify nations as lower tier, middle tier and upper tier, there is also a recently formed super tier.

what if this tiers couldn't downdeclare on lower tiers?

 

so I thought we could divide the game in 2 tiers to make it more massive, 1st tier would include all nations with 15 cities and below and second tier would include all nations over 16 cities.

neither tier would be able to declare on the other, so updeclares into a tier above you would be out of the question aswell.

 

this means you can set a doable goal for a new nation to reach 15 cities and fight comfortably with other peers of your size without having to worry about some mammoth with 26 cities (myself) to come and ruin your fun.

I remember to have had alot of fun back when I had 15 cities and I had a wide variety of people to war with without having to worry about a nonexistent supertier at the time, today the nations that size don't enjoy the same pleasures.

 

with a tier system we would also be dividing the veterals from the noobs, the veterans have a solidified treaty system that will be very hard to break, giving them an extra advantage against the nations in development and by constantly beating them down they are succesfully driving them away from the game.

this could also help make a shift of powers, giving opportunities to other alliances to gather some power over the game and stop this stagnation we are suffering.

we would still work under the same rules regarding everything else like trading or even feeding lower nations tons of money for faster growth but war wise, I think it would make things more interesting.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

after discussing about this in one of the discord servers I thought of another option.

instead of a score cap for updeclares and downdeclares, make it a city cap, so a nation with 20 cities can't hit below 17 for example, or they can't hit below 80% of their current city count so 16 cities, while updeclares can hit over 50% their city counts? so a 16 city nation could hit someone with 24 cities for example but can only be downdeclared by a guy with 20?

Edited May 27, 2017 by Seb

[Shia LeBeouf]

I feel like it would be very difficult to survive when you move up a tier then, as people that are at 26 cities could still fight people with only 16, making it likely that moving up a tier would resulting all of your stuff being destroyed with little hope to fix it. Even on a smaller scale, it could still end up being the same problem. You also get people with very few cities and high infra per city that are already a problem, that would be even worse in a city based system.

[Ryleh]

I think one thing that could be modified in this system is allowing folks in a lower city tier to updeclare, but not allow downdeclares past a certain level.

[Utter Nutter]

.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Seb

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

upper tier already has the declaration disadvantage, why do you want to make it worse?

[Lord of Puns]

The thing you take issue with is game strategy. The whole point is to make it difficult to build enough military to hit someone on your level with no military. That's the purpose of scores and why military impacts your score so much.

 

Solution: you don't like fighting large city counts? Don't build up to them.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Lord of Puns

[Edward I]

Solution: you don't like fighting large city counts? Don't build up to them.

Or make very high city counts even more difficult to reach than they currently are. The game is already starting to see the extreme nation score disparities that are a big reason (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is ruined.

[Spooner]

This is just a shoddy implementation of the score system. "Tiers" are a bad idea.

I could come up with a few ways of potentially addressing the issue, but I suspect Sheepy is uninterested in development for this game at present.

[Insert Name Here]

You're a nice guy and all, Seb, but I have to agree with SRD here. Just take this war as an example - we rolled the opposition into the depths of the low tier. Now the only thing almost all of us at our coalition can do to have targets is decommig / decom double buying.

 

You really have to know what you're doing if you mass decom double buy. I speak for myself: if I don''t manage buy just 1 type of previously decommed military unit right before update, when I'm decom double buying, I'll almost certainly get rolled. Even if you get it right you still have a big chance of seeing it backfire. I mean, if I lose my Internet connection even for a few minutes (right before update), I'll get rolled for sure.

 

And that's what we have at the moment: game mechanics that already make it hard af to keep fighting smaller targets. Not to mention the cash and resources stuff like decom double buying wastes, which fortunately ain't a problem for me in particular coz warchest is always my side's (and mine as well) priority at all times.

 

in short, if you roll the opposition even though they had that crucial 1st strike advantage, score advantage and huge numerical advantage, you simply can't have game mechanics punish you even further for having done a terrific job.

 

If some alliances have lower avg. city counts it's usually because 1) they chose to; 2) suck at econ; or 3) are bad at fighting and therefore get rolled on a regular basis, thus having less money to buy cities when compared to the opposition.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Insert Name Here

[Ryleh]

If some alliances have lower avg. city counts it's usually because 1) they chose to; 2) suck at econ; or 3) are bad at fighting and therefore get rolled on a regular basis, thus having less money to buy cities when compared to the opposition.

Orrr they are younger, with mainly newer members. 

[Insert Name Here]

Orrr they are younger, with mainly newer members. 

 

 

That's why I said "usually".

[Vladamir Putin]

What if the war system was changed so that when you declare war on someone who's military score is larger than your whole score combined, you can declare on them without taking up a defensive war slot.

 

 

 

This would allow 20 nations, each with 5 cities, to all declare on a guy with 15 cities and a maxed military.

 

 

Like a bunch of native tribes working together to conquer a country.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

That is also a terrible idea, because most of your score is military, and on top of that, if you get hit by 20 dudes, assuming you could win (which would be next to impossible) it would be so extremely expensive to fight them you would need a metric shit ton of gas/munitions.

[Livius Clades]

Idk if that would work but what the hell the game's already broken might as well try something interesting.

[Yang]

So you'd get 15 city people hitting 7 city nations? And the god tier 30 cities will be hiting the 20 cities.

[Vladamir Putin]

That is also a terrible idea, because most of your score is military, and on top of that, if you get hit by 20 dudes, assuming you could win (which would be next to impossible) it would be so extremely expensive to fight them you would need a metric shit ton of gas/munitions.

 

Then in this specific type of war, have the defender (the big guy) use less resources defending against this type of war. (just call it guerrilla war for now)

 

Have the amount of resources the defender would need to use be divided by the amount of guerrilla wars declared against them. (doesn't affect normal wars)

 

So if 10 small guys gang up on a huge guy with this, he would spend 10% of the normal amount defending attacks from each of them.

[Livius Clades]

To be fair I bet Sheepy wouldn't do any big change regardless of what they are. I mean Custom Currency has been requested since day one. Still nothing on that front.

[Ryleh]

So you'd get 15 city people hitting 7 city nations? And the god tier 30 cities will be hiting the 20 cities.

I mean you'd still probably need to obey the NS rules/downdeclare formula. 

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

So you'd get 15 city people hitting 7 city nations? And the god tier 30 cities will be hiting the 20 cities.

Guess what, if I spend 6.5 billion dollars to go from city 20 to city 30, I better have a !@#$ing advantage.

[durmij]

The score range mechanic is fundamentally broken and leaning on it harder won't fix anything. Just beg for a spot in the statekraft beta and don't get too attached to PnW.

[Them]

There's no need to break the game. If the community thnks that downdeclares are a problem, decreasing the downdeclare range to 80 or 85% of score rather than the current 75% should suffice. I've done downdeclares on nations with half my city count while having no military and still managed to get rekt once countered. Between a range reduction and the city score increase from earlier, downdeclares won't be a problem. Better yet, since the community is split here, there's no reason to change the mechanics. 

[Amaryllis]

Really, I don't see this as too much of a problem. Down declares suck yes but from what I understand are harder to do compared to updeclares and can seriously backfire if not done right. Think when it comes down to it, it's all about strategy. I've seen nations take down ones with double the city count and clearly an advantage in double buy just by some good coordination.

 

But really I think if you wanted to make this a bit easier I say lower the amount of score ships add. Maybe its just me but I did see some low level cities fall into range of high range ones because ships jacked up their score. If not, I say just leave it Alone like Them said.

[Sketchy]

Downdeclare is fine. It doesn't need to be changed tbh.

[koru]

Downdeclare is the most flawed mechanism in this game. It is ridiculous that with the concept of "3 ganging up on 1" that some peeps like to call "coordination", updeclare is enjoying a similar war range logic to downdeclare.

 

Unless downdeclare is (rightfully) adjusted to -10%, i find it quite dumb to level up.

[Who Me]

The score range mechanic is fundamentally broken and leaning on it harder won't fix anything. Just beg for a spot in the statekraft beta and don't get too attached to PnW.

 

Why would you want to play another game made by someone that has already proven they can't manage the game they already have running? The server dies every major war so the fix is to introduce major lag at server reset instead of actually fixing the problem.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Who Me