Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Increase the unlimited range for declaring.


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

#1 Tchort

Tchort

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Nation Name:Cobrarium
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox

Posted 24 October 2008 - 01:42 PM

Current issue:
As it stands now if a nation is at 50k strength they can attack anyone above them. The concept is nice and I do like it myself however the problem erupts when you notice that the number one nation in the game is currently 164.3k. At the time of this topic being made the highest ranked 50k nation is 50.9k and ranked 1,332.

Solution:
I feel at this point with nations becoming larger that the limit should be increased. Now to fend off this issue occuring just down the line of a month or so the beginning change will seem huge. I'm suggesting we make the standard 50%/200% apply until you break the 75k range. This will help those that are reaching what is going to be typically the standard in a war from being stomped by the highest rank nations in the game.

Personally, I don't see Bubbler (164k) attacking some random 55k nation if a war to break out. However as past wars have shown many, many nations have been tripled by nations that are so far above them that fighting is basically a waste of time as they cannot match fighting them 1 v. 1 let alone 3 v. 1.

50k declaring range: 25k-100k (If the range is increased)
75k declaring range: 37.5k-150k

For arguments sake let's take 70k as well for a range level. 35k-140k, that'll give the largest nations in the game even more protection from those scary 70k nations.

I hope this suggestion entertains someone around here and a solution can be worked out and possibly implemented. Thanks!

#2 EvenStar

EvenStar

    retired

  • Retired Moderator
  • 1,920 posts

Posted 04 November 2008 - 11:30 AM

What does the community think?

#3 Monkeydee

Monkeydee

    Advanced Member

  • Banned - Appeal Denied
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Nation Name:Monkeydamia
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox

Posted 04 November 2008 - 03:29 PM

if i may suggest, i feel that it may be best to have it be, say, the top 2%* that are all in range of one another. this way we aren't left to the same thing every few months where the "in all range" range is so drastically broad

*doesn't have to be 2%. that was just useed as an example value.

Edited by Monkeydee, 04 November 2008 - 03:30 PM.


#4 (DAC)Syzygy

(DAC)Syzygy

    No matching nation

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

Posted 04 November 2008 - 03:32 PM

I think that artificial exceptions from the standards lead to nothing but inconsistencies while offering few to none advantages.

As long as the general limit is 50-200%, I would simply leave it exactly that way. For everyone.

I said the same thing when the limit was increased from 30k to 50k: It is only a matter of time since the nations simply outgrow the new "rule" and the discussions start again. Get rid of such stuff and just stick to the general rule: if you want to attack a 160k nation, grow to 80k yourself. Simple as that.

Additional thoughts:
If the admin is working on the declaration range, he shoud *DEFINITELY* consider a narrowing of the range from 50-200% to one of the 3 values below:
A) 60.00-166.67%
B) 66.67-150.00%
C) 75.00-133.33%

Why is that benefitial for the game?
- right now it is an absolutely unquestioned fact that wars in this game tend to be 5-1 curbstomps or even worse. making the range closer makes sure that at least the fighting nations cannot be 3 attackers of double size, limiting the worst-case scenario from 600% vs. 100% to 500% vs 100% in case A / 450% vs 100% in case B / 400% vs 100% in case C).
- it gives nation a higher motivation to grow: it is harder to beat them down and the opponents they will face in war will more closer to themselves

#5 Bodvar Jarl

Bodvar Jarl

    Venturing out of the dungeon once again

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Nation Name:Bodvaria
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox

Posted 04 November 2008 - 03:34 PM

if i may suggest, i feel that it may be best to have it be, say, the top 2%* that are all in range of one another. this way we aren't left to the same thing every few months where the "in all range" range is so drastically broad

*doesn't have to be 2%. that was just useed as an example value.


I think tying it to percentage would be for the best.

#6 iMatt

iMatt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 625 posts
  • Nation Name:East Samnor
  • Alliance Name:Exodus

Posted 04 November 2008 - 04:28 PM

Syzygy's got it right. (as always) The most important idea right now for declaration ranges is to make them smaller.

#7 Arcturus Jefferson

Arcturus Jefferson

    Killing Lannisters isn't treason.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,748 posts
  • Nation Name:Selukia

Posted 05 November 2008 - 01:20 AM

Syzygy for president (+1)

#8 SynthFG

SynthFG

    His name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,158 posts
  • Nation Name:Fortress
  • Alliance Name:The Grämlins

Posted 05 November 2008 - 03:57 AM

I think that artificial exceptions from the standards lead to nothing but inconsistencies while offering few to none advantages.

As long as the general limit is 50-200%, I would simply leave it exactly that way. For everyone.

I said the same thing when the limit was increased from 30k to 50k: It is only a matter of time since the nations simply outgrow the new "rule" and the discussions start again. Get rid of such stuff and just stick to the general rule: if you want to attack a 160k nation, grow to 80k yourself. Simple as that.

Additional thoughts:
If the admin is working on the declaration range, he shoud *DEFINITELY* consider a narrowing of the range from 50-200% to one of the 3 values below:
A) 60.00-166.67%
B) 66.67-150.00%
C) 75.00-133.33%

Why is that benefitial for the game?
- right now it is an absolutely unquestioned fact that wars in this game tend to be 5-1 curbstomps or even worse. making the range closer makes sure that at least the fighting nations cannot be 3 attackers of double size, limiting the worst-case scenario from 600% vs. 100% to 500% vs 100% in case A / 450% vs 100% in case B / 400% vs 100% in case C).
- it gives nation a higher motivation to grow: it is harder to beat them down and the opponents they will face in war will more closer to themselves


Would defiantly support C

#9 Doctor Wily

Doctor Wily

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Nation Name:Monstropolis
  • Alliance Name:The Phoenix Federation

Posted 05 November 2008 - 05:21 AM

If the admin is working on the declaration range, he shoud *DEFINITELY* consider a narrowing of the range from 50-200% to one of the 3 values below:
A) 60.00-166.67%
B) 66.67-150.00%
C) 75.00-133.33%

I like B, combined with

if i may suggest, i feel that it may be best to have it be, say, the top 2%* that are all in range of one another.

the top 1% always allowed to declare on each other.

The nature of the game's rules has created a situation in which it is very difficult for newer nations to come within a close NS range of the top few nations. War is perhaps the only way that the top nations may ever lose their spots. If the 50K+ free for all is abandoned, and the range of declaration is restricted too much, the top few nations will have effectively broken free of the dangers of warfare and it may be impossible for any nation to overtake their strength. If C were implemented the current top nation would only have eight nations in its range of declaration. So, I suggest a combination of the two suggestions.

Edited by Doctor Wily, 05 November 2008 - 05:22 AM.


#10 (DAC)Syzygy

(DAC)Syzygy

    No matching nation

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

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:18 AM

the top 1% always allowed to declare on each other.

The nature of the game's rules has created a situation in which it is very difficult for newer nations to come within a close NS range of the top few nations. War is perhaps the only way that the top nations may ever lose their spots. If the 50K+ free for all is abandoned, and the range of declaration is restricted too much, the top few nations will have effectively broken free of the dangers of warfare and it may be impossible for any nation to overtake their strength. If C were implemented the current top nation would only have eight nations in its range of declaration. So, I suggest a combination of the two suggestions.

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.

#11 der_ko

der_ko

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,475 posts
  • Nation Name:USSR
  • Alliance Name:Mashroom Kingdöööm

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:51 AM

Syzygy for president (+2)

The war declaration range needs to be smaller. As it is now you might aswell remove all limits and the end result would still be the same. War is just too unbalanced with the current range. Personally, I'd prefer 75-150 % range, but Syz suggestions works well too.

#12 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 05 November 2008 - 08:15 AM

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.

#13 iMatt

iMatt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 625 posts
  • Nation Name:East Samnor
  • Alliance Name:Exodus

Posted 05 November 2008 - 09:56 AM

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.


Probably because it was too difficult to figure out exactly who you could attack and who you couldn't without actually going to the war screen? But then again, we still have that image telling us whether they are in our range or not. But 1/2 your strength to 2 times your strength was easy to remember. I suggest just making it smaller but equally as easy to remember (3/4 your strength to 4/3 your strength)

#14 enderland

enderland

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 06 November 2008 - 12:20 PM

Make it 1/2 of the highest NS in the game.

#15 Emperor Badger

Emperor Badger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Nation Name:Badgerstomp
  • Alliance Name:BAPS

Posted 06 November 2008 - 09:08 PM

Make it 1/2 of the highest NS in the game.


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.

#16 SleepiB

SleepiB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 226 posts
  • Nation Name:Cogitine
  • Alliance Name:The Sweet Oblivion

Posted 06 November 2008 - 10:35 PM

It is also an issue that nuke range for nations without MHP is now over 50k NS.

#17 Delta1212

Delta1212

    The Just Dessert

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,075 posts
  • Nation Name:Verspasia
  • Alliance Name:Random Insanity Alliance

Posted 07 November 2008 - 12:13 AM

Make it 1/2 of the highest NS in the game.

In other words: exactly what it would be with no special range :awesome:

#18 (DAC)Syzygy

(DAC)Syzygy

    No matching nation

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

Posted 07 November 2008 - 01:30 AM

It is also an issue that nuke range for nations without MHP is now over 50k NS.

no, thats the reason why you can buy an Manhattan Project to ignore this range -_-. De facto its the only purpose of the MP ^^

#19 +Zeke+

+Zeke+

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 07 November 2008 - 03:07 AM

Syzygy's got it right. (as always)


I concur.

Why set up an artificial barrier that begins to grow obsolete the moment you put it in?


A dynamic range system fills the need and never needs updating.

#20 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 07 November 2008 - 08:58 AM

It is also an issue that nuke range for nations without MHP is now over 50k NS.

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users