[admin]

Brotherington mentioned team specific global radiation in another thread and I thought it was pretty interesting. What are your thoughts on this? Here's the current GRL for each team and the results using 0.2 as a multiplyer:

None: 5 nuked nations * .2 = 1.0 GRL
Aqua: 8 nuked nations * .2 = 1.6 GRL
Black: 21 nuked nations * .2 = 4.2 GRL (capped at 4.0)
Blue: 42 nuked nations * .2 = 8.4 GRL (capped at 4.0)
Brown: 5 nuked nations * .2 = 1.0 GRL
Green: 23 nuked nations * .2 = 4.6 GRL (capped at 4.0)
Maroon: 13 nuked nations * .2 = 2.6 GRL
Orange: 35 nuked nations * .2 = 7.0 GRL (capped at 4.0)
Pink: 6 nuked nations * .2 = 1.2 GRL
Purple: 5 nuked nations * .2 = 1.0 GRL
Red: 10 nuked nations * .2 = 2.0 GRL
Yellow: 5 nuked nations * .2 = 1.0 GRL
White: 7 nuked nations * .2 = 1.4 GRL

[Lord Sharpe]

Brilliant. Though the larger colours are unfairly hit by this, I might recommend scaleing it according to number of nations.

This post has been edited by Lord Sharpe: 01 November 2007 - 02:48 PM

[der_ko]

I like this idea, but the formula should probably be changed so GRL won't be maxed out all the time.

This post has been edited by der_ko: 01 November 2007 - 02:49 PM

[rozalia]

Lord Sharpe, on Nov 1 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

Brilliant. Though the larger colours are unfairly hit by this, I might recommend scaleing it according to number of nations.

No, No, No, NO, No!

They have advantage in trade, surly that is enough. This gives being in a weaker colour a reason.

[Noob Cake]

Scale it
That; number of nation / total nation * team grl please
This is GLOBAL radiation level, not TEAM radiation level.

This post has been edited by Noob Cake: 01 November 2007 - 02:52 PM

[der_ko]

Lord Sharpe, on Nov 1 2007, 09:53 PM, said:

Brilliant. Though the larger colours are unfairly hit by this, I might recommend scaleing it according to number of nations.

I like that bigger teams gets hit harder. It gives an incentive for alliances to move to the smaller teams.

[myruler]

I don't like this because it will turn into more people switching teams making less stable trades and many more alliance's making other alliance's change teams. But...if you do do this, I would suggest adding something about the total number of nations into affect somehow as bigger teams would have the more potential to have more nations nuclear capable.

[bros2]

I'd prefer if GRL was totally removed, but this is okay by bros' rules.

[rozalia]

myruler, on Nov 1 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

I don't like this because it will turn into more people switching teams making less stable trades and many more alliance's making other alliance's change teams. But...if you do do this, I would suggest adding something about the total number of nations into affect somehow as bigger teams would have the more potential to have more nations nuclear capable.

Whats so bad about that. I am sick of Blue folk constantly shoving it in my face that Blue is "Awesome" and the "Win". It serves them right, karma is coming for them.

[Seerow]

I agree that it should be dependent on the size of the team in question. A team with 5000 nations is harder to give mass radiation to than a team with 1000.

I also think that it should be uncapped. Why cap the penalty at 4 points? Let people actually feel the penalty in the middle of a mass nuclear war.

[admin]

One problem that I see with this is team switching outsourcing. If a group doesn't like a particular team color then have as many people as they can who have been hit with nukes latley switch to that team color and hurt everyone who is on that team.

[Brotherington]

I would love it. The collateral damage of GRL was always meaningless by the old system because it affecting everyone equally. Team specific GRL could also make for interesting drama, with peaceful alliances possibly unwilling to share a color sphere with more warlike (and pro-nuclear) alliances.

[rozalia]

Seerow, on Nov 1 2007, 09:02 PM, said:

I agree that it should be dependent on the size of the team in question. A team with 5000 nations is harder to give mass radiation to than a team with 1000.

I also think that it should be uncapped. Why cap the penalty at 4 points? Let people actually feel the penalty in the middle of a mass nuclear war.

What are you suggesting exactly. Are you saying that teams like Pink and Brown should be hit harder instead of Blue. Bah, why not remove every colour with less then 2000 nations while you're at it.

[Seerow]

admin, on Nov 1 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

One problem that I see with this is team switching outsourcing. If a group doesn't like a particular team color then have as many people as they can who have been hit with nukes latley switch to that team color and hurt everyone who is on that team.

Make it dependent instead on the color the nation was when it was nuked. Anytime a nation on that color gets hit, the GRL counter increases. Don't tie it to an individual nation, and the problem goes away.

[rozalia]

admin, on Nov 1 2007, 09:02 PM, said:

One problem that I see with this is team switching outsourcing. If a group doesn't like a particular team color then have as many people as they can who have been hit with nukes latley switch to that team color and hurt everyone who is on that team.

Do it by update then. Increase the time you have to wait to switch team also.

[(DAC)Syzygy]

i prefer GRL above TRL

reasoning:

A world is a world and there is no magic barrier between their nations and ours. Nuclear strikes affect the environment of ALL nations on earth, not only those who are hit. Also it would actually benefit the nuclear attacker to hurt the attacked nations whole team (and if this alliance is a one-color-alliance - the whole alliance twice as hard). Makes no sense.

[Brotherington]

(DAC)Syzygy, on Nov 1 2007, 09:05 PM, said:

i prefer GRL above TRL

reasoning:

A world is a world and there is no magic barrier between their nations and ours. Nuclear strikes affect the environment of ALL nations on earth, not only those who are hit. Also it would actually benefit the nuclear attacker to hurt the attacked nations whole team (and if this alliance is a one-color-alliance - the whole alliance twice as hard). Makes no sense.

If you imagine team colours as continents it makes sense. If alot of nukes hit Africa the Africans are gonna feel it more than those on the other side of the world.



Edit: why shouldn't radiation benefit the attacker? It makes sense that if my enemies were neighbors I could get many of them with the collateral damage. And it works both ways - if I or my alliance launches nuclear first strikes I now have to think about the affect the retaliation will have on my alliances mates and our neighbors on our team color.

This post has been edited by Brotherington: 01 November 2007 - 03:10 PM

[rozalia]

(DAC)Syzygy, on Nov 1 2007, 09:05 PM, said:

i prefer GRL above TRL

reasoning:

A world is a world and there is no magic barrier between their nations and ours. Nuclear strikes affect the environment of ALL nations on earth, not only those who are hit. Also it would actually benefit the nuclear attacker to hurt the attacked nations whole team (and if this alliance is a one-color-alliance - the whole alliance twice as hard). Makes no sense.

Well maybe I'd like there to be more of a reason to move to the more peaceful and smaller teams.

[Seerow]

Brotherington, on Nov 1 2007, 05:07 PM, said:

If you imagine team colours as continents it makes sense. If alot of nukes hit Africa the Africans are gonna feel it more than those on the other side of the world.

Perhaps having a combination as compromise?


Say you have a certain amount based on nukes that have hit your team, then you add to that another, smaller number, from nukes around the world.

That way a nuke being launched affects -everybody- but it affects the team that was hit the hardest.

[Wadsworth]

I like this idea. It would make the teams a bit more balanced and it using Brotherington's continent analogy, it certainly makes sense.