Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Increase the unlimited range for declaring.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
101 replies to this topic

#21 (DAC)Syzygy

(DAC)Syzygy

    No matching nation

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,202 posts
  • Nation Name:New Syzygia
  • Alliance Name:True Grämlins

Posted 07 November 2008 - 09:47 AM

While this isn't directly an issue, it does lead into one. Let's say in 6 months the largest nation is 200k, and the nuke range 80k. Yet a nation can get itself to 50k, buy a MP and nuke those 200k nations, probably costing more money in damages than they have earnt in the entire life of their own nation! And on the other hand, in an alliance war you're going to have 50k nations attacked by a nation four times their size, which would not be fun.

That.

And exactly because of that: Narrow the range and make no exceptions. If you want to attack someone, grow in his range. Easy as that.

#22 mitchh

mitchh

    Collecting stats

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 460 posts
  • Nation Name:Congo
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox

Posted 07 November 2008 - 11:34 AM

I would support any of the above ideas. The war declaration system is a little outdated now.

#23 enderland

enderland

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,108 posts
  • Nation Name:Fields of Elysium
  • Alliance Name:The Grämlins

Posted 07 November 2008 - 12:28 PM

But the nation with 1/2 of the highest NS can attack the highest NS anyway. That suggestion would just make it to a 50% / 200% rule for the top nations.


Sorry,

I meant make the unlimited range 50% the top NS in the game, but then also do the 66%/150% or something similar for other nations.

If it's always the same percent eventually the top tier of nations will have nearly no one that can touch them. At 75%/133% there are very few that can engage nations at the highest NS's.

#24 Lummerian Empire

Lummerian Empire

    I want to be the race car.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Nation Name:Lummerian Empire
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox

Posted 08 November 2008 - 06:39 PM

I like the 75%/133% suggestion and 1% or 2% for unlimited range.

Edited by Lummerian Empire, 10 November 2008 - 03:06 AM.


#25 Azaghul

Azaghul

    Baruk Khazâd! Khazâd ai-mênu!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,155 posts
  • Nation Name:Belegost
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Wienerville
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:TE Police

Posted 09 November 2008 - 02:26 AM

Lowering the range has been under consideration for months or more and discussed numerous times, and I think pretty much everyone has stated supported it. I've basically lost faith that it and other nearly universally supported suggestions on this forum are gonna be implemented or that it's even worth posting here, when an easy change to narrow declaration ranges is never made even after all the time and discussion that has happened.

#26 (DAC)Syzygy

(DAC)Syzygy

    No matching nation

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,202 posts
  • Nation Name:New Syzygia
  • Alliance Name:True Grämlins

Posted 09 November 2008 - 05:51 AM

If it's always the same percent eventually the top tier of nations will have nearly no one that can touch them. At 75%/133% there are very few that can engage nations at the highest NS's.

True, thats why I said: base it on ranks.

Make 75/133% the general rule, but with the exception that you can ALWAYS attack -100/+100 ranks up or down. (maybe even -250/+250)

This way NOBODY could ever grow out of range from everyone, but on a large scale wars would be a lot more fair.

#27 admin

admin

    Game Admin/Owner

  • Admin
  • 5,695 posts
  • Nation Name:Great Nation
  • Alliance Name:CN Staff

Posted 09 November 2008 - 10:19 AM

What about 75-133% but instead of using a top 2% for the limit make it the top 5%? That way the game is consistent with the nuclear capable range. Basing it on ranks as well as the 75-133% and the top 5% as Syzygy mentioned above would probably over complicate things.

#28 enderland

enderland

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,108 posts
  • Nation Name:Fields of Elysium
  • Alliance Name:The Grämlins

Posted 09 November 2008 - 12:10 PM

What about 75-133% but instead of using a top 2% for the limit make it the top 5%? That way the game is consistent with the nuclear capable range. Basing it on ranks as well as the 75-133% and the top 5% as Syzygy mentioned above would probably over complicate things.


Eh, I'd rather see just 75-133 because the top 5% can have a LOT of difference in NS...

Someone with just over 50k NS (currently where the 5% mark is) can still hit anyone above them, and be hit by anyone above them :-\

#29 Natan

Natan

    [`_`]

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Nation Name:Ragtag
  • Alliance Name:Umbrella

Posted 09 November 2008 - 12:25 PM

Well, another, and maybe more fluid system would be to determine war range not by NS, but by ranking.

As example: Everyone can attack +/- 500 ranks of his own ranking (together 1,000 nations). This would automatically adapt, no matter how the game grows or shrinks.

Means: To attack the #1 nation, you must be within the Top500 (currently 67k NS or higher). You can be attacked by everyone (or attack down to) within the Top1000 (56k NS).

Very nice system, because everyone always has the same amount of nations in his "range" (no one can grow into eternal safety), but attacking downwards will offer only almost equalsized targets (Top500 -> Top1000 are only 11k difference! Top2000 -> Top2500 even less). End of curbstomps.


I am a fan of this idea. Wars would be much more interesting for example, at a level below 40k NS the 500 nations up and down have barely any difference. This wouldn't end curb stomping, but it would require a well fought war to have a lot more coordination, etc. Of course, with their being 30k Nations it may have to be changed to +/- 1k Rank.

Don't make the formula different based on ranks though, that would really over confuse things, make it universal or don't change it at all.

#30 Bob Janova

Bob Janova

    His Royal Majesty, King of Seria

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,047 posts
  • Nation Name:Seria
  • Alliance Name:The Order of Grämlins

Posted 09 November 2008 - 05:52 PM

What about 75-133% but instead of using a top 2% for the limit make it the top 5%? That way the game is consistent with the nuclear capable range. Basing it on ranks as well as the 75-133% and the top 5% as Syzygy mentioned above would probably over complicate things.

5% today is around 54k if I remember right, so effectively you are 'freezing in' the 50k limit from now. It's a less bad situation than the fixed limit, as at least it will grow in proportion with the game, but someone at 5% against the top nations is going to be very asymmetric warfare.

What's wrong with just 75-133% at all sizes? There aren't that many nations that can declare on the top 10, but there aren't that many nations in the top 10 ;). I don't believe we'd ever get a situation where some nations were completely out of range with those limits.

I agree that having ranks and NS involved would be too complicated. I would like to hear the arguments against simply using rank (or %, which is equivalent but scales with the size of the community), because that seems like a good system too and is simple to understand.

#31 Thorr

Thorr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Nation Name:Thor's hammer
  • Alliance Name:The Phoenix Federation

Posted 09 November 2008 - 08:08 PM

I don't see why we have a number above which it's a free for all at all. I would remove the limit entirely, make it so you must be within the range of anyone you want to attack.

If I understand correctly the declaration used to be based on rank, not strength. It seems like a good idea (you can declare on nations within say 0.5% of you) but there must be good reasons why it was changed, so I'd like to hear those.

When I first started it was plus or minus 100 ranks which made it very difficult to attack in groups. Then they finally decided to open it up which they may have over done. I cannot see it being a huge impact if you are being nailed 3 v 1 you will loose even if they are all same str as you. As you will quickly be knocked down to where they are double your strength. A possibility of closing it a small amount say 66 to 150 percent could be a reasonable idea but if you close it too much they will start complaining about being able to find someone to attack with.
Now 500 ranks seems a lot but it wasn't enough back then as you could jump up and down in ranks by buying armies and get within a 100 ranks of someone and attack with a buddy. Thus 500 ranks is not enough in every situation. For top nations it works because you quickly change the strength ratings per rank. Near the center of the ranks everyone is too close to each other in strength and someone 500 ranks higher is still basically the same strength. Noone really wants a fair fight as it is too costly in this game. They want to win. Thus they will complain they cannot target anyone. Percentage is best but closing it a bit would be good also.

Edited by Thorr, 09 November 2008 - 08:20 PM.


#32 enderland

enderland

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,108 posts
  • Nation Name:Fields of Elysium
  • Alliance Name:The Grämlins

Posted 09 November 2008 - 09:17 PM

When I first started it was plus or minus 100 ranks which made it very difficult to attack in groups. Then they finally decided to open it up which they may have over done. I cannot see it being a huge impact if you are being nailed 3 v 1 you will loose even if they are all same str as you. As you will quickly be knocked down to where they are double your strength. A possibility of closing it a small amount say 66 to 150 percent could be a reasonable idea but if you close it too much they will start complaining about being able to find someone to attack with.
Now 500 ranks seems a lot but it wasn't enough back then as you could jump up and down in ranks by buying armies and get within a 100 ranks of someone and attack with a buddy. Thus 500 ranks is not enough in every situation. For top nations it works because you quickly change the strength ratings per rank. Near the center of the ranks everyone is too close to each other in strength and someone 500 ranks higher is still basically the same strength. Noone really wants a fair fight as it is too costly in this game. They want to win. Thus they will complain they cannot target anyone. Percentage is best but closing it a bit would be good also.


People will complain no matter what the range is. I'd rather it be 75%/133% and more fair and listen to those complaints than be able to wtfpwn nations 1/2 my NS.

#33 Thorr

Thorr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Nation Name:Thor's hammer
  • Alliance Name:The Phoenix Federation

Posted 09 November 2008 - 09:30 PM

75 to 133 percent leaves me with only 311 nations to target. Also only 5 of 272 nations in my alliance are within that range of me.
Also Matt Miller would only have 10 targets.

Edited by Thorr, 09 November 2008 - 09:39 PM.


#34 (DAC)Syzygy

(DAC)Syzygy

    No matching nation

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,202 posts
  • Nation Name:New Syzygia
  • Alliance Name:True Grämlins

Posted 10 November 2008 - 10:26 AM

75 to 133 percent leaves me with only 311 nations to target. Also only 5 of 272 nations in my alliance are within that range of me.
Also Matt Miller would only have 10 targets.

That opens the NS range for a lot of tactical decisions, doesn't it? Matt Miller spent 2 years hard work to gain that #1 spot - I think it is perfectly deserved for him to reduce the number of people which can kill him. If an alliance wants to target his nation, they have ALSO to bring in someone who is willing to risk LOTS of work. Not just 3 insanely cheap 50k nations which only lob out nukes everyday until he is down.

The current range is bad in BOTH extremes:
- Top ranked nations can simply have 2 years of work destroyed by guys who all together have not invested *nearly* the efforts into their own nations. You basically can exchange cheap dummies to kill a giant. You risk nothing, you gain everything. Bad.
- Lower ranked nations can be stomped by 3 attackers of twice their size = 600% disadvantage by default. A 75-133 range would reduce that disadvantage by 33%. (3x133 = 400%). Definitely a step into the right direction.

#35 Thorr

Thorr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Nation Name:Thor's hammer
  • Alliance Name:The Phoenix Federation

Posted 11 November 2008 - 12:28 AM

Me and Matt Miller don't want to not be able to declare war. This is his own post in another thread about this. It is funny how you think you speak for everyone. Anyone 50k strength has put basically a year into their nation so it isn't easy to get there.

Matt Miller

post Aug 3 2008, 05:07 AM
Post #45


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 6-September 07
Member No.: 1,795
Nation Name:
Bubbler Nation
Alliance Name:
IRON




I'm assuming all the talk of changing the attack ranges to something along the lines of 75%-150% would only hold true up to a certain level along the lines of how now anyone above 50k can attack all the way up and anyone all the way up can attack all the way down to 50k.

Otherwise the 75% rule would allow my nation for example to attack exactly 13 other nations in the entire game. This does not seem very logical.

On another note, I do find the limiting of defensive slots and expansion of attacking slots rather intriguing. I also like having the warfare slanted slightly toward the defender to limit gang ups and raiding.

Edited by Thorr, 11 November 2008 - 12:35 AM.


#36 (DAC)Syzygy

(DAC)Syzygy

    No matching nation

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,202 posts
  • Nation Name:New Syzygia
  • Alliance Name:True Grämlins

Posted 11 November 2008 - 02:08 AM

I dont think I "speak for everyone". I just have an opinion. And this opinion is: The current NS range is way too large. I even agree with Matt Millers reasoning, that why I said that you should be ALWAYS able to declare or be declared by the 500 nations around you (+250 ranks / -250 ranks to your own).

But not by 3 guys of each 200% your strength.

The problem of CN is that no one "can run away" or "hide". Every nation is simply track- and traceable. In most other games you can outmaneuver stronger opponents until you have enough firepower to enter a real battle, in CN you cannot. This is why every game has protection mechanisms to make sure 3 higher up guys cannot constantly gangbang lower players. Because that makes fighting back basically impossible.

I honestly cannot see what would be bad about a 75-133% maximum range with a the minimum range of 500 nations. "Complicated"? Not really more complicated then "50-200% but 50k+ is free for all".

#37 +Zeke+

+Zeke+

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts
  • Nation Name:Iron Heart
  • Alliance Name:The Dark Templar

Posted 11 November 2008 - 02:18 AM

I still don't see the need for a secondary line if we all agree on a good basic range.

Set it right and you never have to deal with it again.


75-150 is my choice. The guy who attacks me will never have an insane advantage over me, but I'm still free to attack people insanely bigger than me.

#38 (DAC)Syzygy

(DAC)Syzygy

    No matching nation

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,202 posts
  • Nation Name:New Syzygia
  • Alliance Name:True Grämlins

Posted 11 November 2008 - 02:29 AM

I still don't see the need for a secondary line if we all agree on a good basic range.


The problem is, that his "basic range" gets incredibly small at the top. Why? Because nations are a lot of NS away from each other there.

Top100:
#0001 = 171,281.345 NS
#0100 = 91,860.502 NS
-> Difference of 80k NS among 100 nations.

Top1000:
#1000 = 56,754.365
#1100 = 55,326.525
-> Difference of 1.4k NS among 100 nations.

So, either base it on ranks (where NS difference is rather irrelevant) or deflate NS again to bring even more different nations closer together. Like Land=1, Infra=2, Tech=3. And from these two options, I think the basic rule of "500 targets, 250 weaker+250 higher" as minimum range for everyone and 75-133% maximum range is the better alternative.

#39 +Zeke+

+Zeke+

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts
  • Nation Name:Iron Heart
  • Alliance Name:The Dark Templar

Posted 11 November 2008 - 02:50 AM

Then just go 75-200 then, Syzygy.

Raising the number to attack up is no big deal. If a nation is crazy enough to pick a fight above his weight class then I'm all in favor of Darwin making the rules.

Heck, I'm almost inclined to accept the upper limit be unlimited for all I care. If it wasn't for the fact that ants could make nuisances of themselves by constantly filling war slots just to irritate me and make me pay attention to them instead of my economy then I'd be completely for it. 200% seems like a decent number to avoid stuff like that.


As for those who are "too big" and don't have a lot of targets down below them then I really can't feel a lot of sympathy for them. They are already "winning the game".

If the lack of targets below you becomes so severe then perhaps we need some more upper game tweaks like the wonders brought us.

Edited by +Zeke+, 11 November 2008 - 02:51 AM.


#40 (DAC)Syzygy

(DAC)Syzygy

    No matching nation

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,202 posts
  • Nation Name:New Syzygia
  • Alliance Name:True Grämlins

Posted 11 November 2008 - 03:01 AM

Then just go 75-200 then, Syzygy.

Doesnt work, because that would leave to a scenario where nations can be spied on and attacked by nations which they cannot spy on or attack themself.

The lower strength limit for the bigger nation must equal the upper strength limit for the smaller nation.

That means:
50-200
66-150
75-133
...
and so on.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users