Fair Weather

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1329264139' post='2920648'] So, everyone should join a decent alliance, get themselves educated, and get nukes. [/quote] So your feeling is that EVERYONE needs to get nukes, and yet you wish to make it significantly more expensive for some to get them than for others to get them. And since the whole purpose of raising the cost of the MP was to reduce the number of nukes in the game by making it harder for the 95% to get nukes (just read this thread to find that out), then you are saying that what everyone NEEDS to do is the very thing that you are purposely making it harder for the 95% to do. This makes no sense at all. Why would you want to purposely make it harder for 95% of the players to do what they NEED to do? [quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1329264139' post='2920648'] I'm not sure where you got "advantages don't matter." They do. But everyone has the same set of advantages, or at least access to them [/quote] So the 95% have access to the same advantages that the 5% do? It stands to simple reasoning that 95% of the players do not have access to nukes without MPs, so everyone does NOT have access to the same advantages.

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1329021147' post='2918841'] ... 4. Nukes. One way or another. [/quote] This is the EXACT problem that this thread was trying to solve.

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1328970416' post='2918330'] Where are you getting this idea that it's hard to get into the top 5%? I've basically been following a guide this entire round, basically haven't put any thought into my nation, and I'm currently ranked #6 in the game. So when I say "your argument is invalid" I believe I know what I'm talking about. [/quote] I really don't think you get it yet. It is not about this or that person "getting into the top 5%". It is about having a fair game for all players by leveling a currently very unlevel playing field, and yet still reducing the "everybody uses, and has to use, nukes, or be stomped" syndrome. Any real solution to the problem being discussed in this thread has to meet those 2 goals or it is not a valid solution. And while at it, let's list some solutions that are not valid suggestions for ANY problem: - Get in a better alliance. (This is equivalent to saying that any player that thinks this game isn't absolutely perfect the way it is, that player is the problem, or that player's alliance is the problem, as opposed to making meaningful suggestions for "THE GAME". This is a suggestion thread for THE GAME, which implies trying to improve THE GAME, not blame people for all problems.) - Anybody can make it into the top 5%. (This assumes that the other 95% of the players are dingbats that are not worthy of being able to play the game. And guess what, they will leave, and leave only the 5% to play the game. And when 95% of the current 5% are then the 95%, and are considered the unworthy dingbats, I wonder how long they will continue playing the game.) - Advantages don't matter. (This just plain makes absolutely no sense at all.) So if we are going to have any chance of improving this game, let's try to make suggestions that will do just that, improve the game. And if we want to keep people from leaving faster than they are coming, then let's try to improve the game for all players, including the new players, and the 95% of the players; and not just the 5% which are all older, already existing, players.

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328369867' post='2914442'] Cost of MP is entirely different to cost of nukes. Please understand that point, and get out of your tunnel vision. I spelled it out pretty clearly. [/quote] I answer this by quoting another poster: [quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1328291391' post='2913878'] All you're doing is decreasing the cost of the first nuke to $4 million instead of $10.2 million. [/quote] So as you can see, the MP is part of the cost of nukes, and others can see that too. [quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328369867' post='2914442'] Having MP, everyone will still buy nukes regardless of the cost of each nuke. That is a fact. I have predicted what would happen in that scenario, and you are not able to bring up a counter argument. [/quote] You "spelling it out pretty clearly", or stating "that is a fact", does not make it fact. A fact requires facts, evidence, proof. So unless this has been tried before, and you can produce the facts regarding that trial, then you are not presenting facts, only opinion. So please do not take offense, if I ask you to show your facts when you state things to be facts, and not just you spelling out your opinion. And since you have not shown facts to prove what you say, what you say is a valid opinion, just as what I say is a valid suggestion. And regarding my making a counter argument, I though that is what I have been doing. [quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328369867' post='2914442'] You are stuck on your idea of making nukes EASIER to get for EVERYONE so the 5% doesnt have an advantage. [/quote] I thought that the advantage of the top 5% was their better skills? Why would people with better skills be against a more level playing field? Are you trying to tell us that you feel that the top 5% are not capable of winning a fair fight with the less skilled 95%? I think that statement of yours says more than all of mine so far, and is probably the single biggest justification of my suggestion to date. Thank you for making it. And as you just said the current price of the MP at $10mil gives the top 5% a significant "advantage". So to all those that keep trying to claim that the current MP price is no disadvantage, please listen to StevieG. He is neither a newbie, nor a new comer, and he states that the current high price of the MP gives the top 5% an advantage, and makes it harder for the 95%.

[quote name='Eumirbago' timestamp='1328363255' post='2914419'] I'm part of the 95% I was able to buy the MP and defend myself. If you can't afford the MP to defend yourself, try your luck with the SDI? [/quote] Who said that "I" was not able to defend myself? This is not about "me", it is about a suggestion. Please do not try to make this personal. Please instead keep this to the ideas that are being proposed.

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1328335151' post='2914323'] Going off the details Fair Weather is suggesting, the first nuke cost for everyone is $4 million + a wonder slot. You will probably see most of the top 7% or so hold off until third or later wonder to buy it, since it will be a huge economic drag giving up an econ wonder that early AND the cost of the nuke itself (wonder + purchase cost). Most of those from 8% to 50% who try buying it in the first month will have to reroll after their first war or stay sub-1k infra the rest of the round. And we'll be left with pretty much the same situation we have now. Mostly only the top 6-7% will have nukes, no one else will. [/quote] If what you say is true, then increasing the cost of the MP to $10mil should not have had an impact since at $4mil (MP used to only be $3mil at one time), only the top 6-7% would have had nukes anyway. So your statement does not agree with the facts shown by this and previous rounds, and stated earlier in this thread.

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328334208' post='2914311'] Nukes are the most powerful weapon, and as such increasing the cost will not result in less being purchased. [/quote] This quote seems strange to me, seeing that it is claimed that increasing the cost of the MP to $10mil decreased the number of nukes to 1/3 what they were before. So which is it? Will increasing the cost reduce the number of nukes, or not? It seems that history, namely this round, proves that increasing the cost does in deed reduce the number of them. The problem is the cost was only increased for the 95%, not the 5%, so now the 95% are much more susceptible to the 5% that wish to beat them into the ground with the nukes that only they can currently afford to have. [quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328334208' post='2914311'] What all that means is that people will be less inclined to war regularly, which is a bad thing for TE. [/quote] If this is so, then please state the facts to back this. The cost of nukes was increased via increasing the cost of the MP this round. So if your statement is true, then you should be able to show a big reduction in wars this round. So where is the reduction in wars this round? I see no reduction in wars, only a one sidedness to them, where those with nukes (usually those that either are, or were at one time, in the top 5%) pummel those that can't afford the MP in order to defend themselves against the nukes. So if what you say is true, please show us where the number of wars has been greatly reduced in this round due to the increased cost of the nukes via the increased MP cost. On the other hand, if what I say is true, time will show that more and more of the 95% will figure that there is no point in playing a game where they are not allowed to defend themselves, and the number of nations playing TE will continually get smaller and smaller, eventually getting to the point where the current 5% get tired of having no one left to beat up, and so even they quit. So tell me, are the number of players in TE greatly increasing (as they should be), or decreasing (as one sided wars would produce)? And before you tell me that the age of the game, or the economy, or some other outside force is causing the decrease, other similar games are increasing, not decreasing, so those theories fall before they are even stated.

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328206366' post='2913219'] The cost of 10 mil means it is a lot harder to get than it was before. That doesnt mean any nation cannot get it, you just have to work a little harder. We are coming into the end of the round now, and no AAs(besides Citadel) have over 100 nukes. Last round, a few AAs had 200 300 odd. This shows that it [b]does[/b] work to limit the nukes. [/quote] I agree that the number of nukes has been reduced. But the question is from whom were they reduced? Obviously the increased cost of the MP had absolutely no effect on the top 5%, since they didn't need it anyway. You could raise the cost of the MP to $900 mil, and it would not affect the top 5%. That means that the 2/3 reduction in nukes came solely from the 95%. That means that the 95% is much less protected against the nukes of the 5%. What I proposed was a way to reduce the nukes from everyone, instead of just from the weakest 95%. Obviously those in the top 5% would still have an advantage since they would be best able to afford the cost of the nukes. But the total number would be reduced, and people would think a lot more before using them enmasse. But the 95% would not be as greatly handicapped as they are right now against the top 5%. The $10mil can buy 50 nukes at $200k a piece. That means that by the time the player at 6% can buy his first nuke, the next player up could have bought his fiftieth. (Granted not all at the same time due to increasing costs, but I think you can see the point.) Do people doubt that the increased cost of the nukes would reduce the total nuke counts? Probably a lot more than the $10mil cost of the MP? Or do people doubt that keeping the MP priced more affordably, but raising the cost of the nukes, would do it more fairly for everyone? And if neither of the above two points is wrong, then what advantage does making the MP extremely high in cost have over the proposal to keep the MP affordable to all players, and making the nukes themselves cost more?

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328184119' post='2913117'] I think you will find that the change to 10 mil has resulted in less of a nuke buildup. Any nation should be able to get the MP by mid round however. [/quote] If "any nation can get it", then it wouldn't have an impact on the number that get it. But you say that it does impact the number. Therefore, according to your own testimony, everyone can't get it, and all that making the MP expensive does is bolster the advantages of those that are already strong (the top 5%), and weaken those that are not as strong, even if they are good players (the 95%), making it easier for the strong to kill the weak, and harder for the weak to defend themselves. Why would we want to strengthen the 5% against the 95%? Do we want to discourage or encourage the 95% to stay in the game?

Some have said "No" to my suggestion, but have not given a reason. Since this is a thread to suggest things, and to discuss reasons for and against, may I ask your reasons? As to the person that said that if it took more than 3-4 days, than you just need to build your nation more efficiently: That only works if you develop you nation and build the MP before the first war breaks out. Otherwise it is nukes against non-nukes, and in that case nukes always rule. But don't take my word for that, just read the posts in this forum. There are many people complaining about the current setup making it that there are too many nukes, and only people with nukes have a chance. Well as long as the game makes it so that only people with nukes have a chance, and nukes are cheap (if you get them at the start), then there will be a lot of nukes, and only nukes will rules. My suggestion was aimed at making everyone capable of getting nukes instead of only the 5% that start on the first day and happen to get to the top quickly by reducing the cost to the others nearer to being equal with the top 5%. And it was aimed at reducing the total nukes, and increasing the cost of using the nukes, to reduce their use throughout the game. These were the two problems people were trying to address, and I believe my suggestion addressed both of the problems.

The problem with MP is TE is that once the wars start, anyone that doesn't have nukes is powerless against someone that does have them. This is because a nuke basically wipes out your entire army, regardless of how much you have invested in it. And people will stock up on nukes, and then become small NS and start slaughtering smaller players before they get a chance to get the MP. At $10 mil it takes roughly 10 days for someone not in the top 5% to get the MP. But 10 days in the time scale of TE is basically eternity. Wars usually hit before you have a chance to get the MP. So we should either make the MP affordable to all, or make all have to get it. Remember, the US was the first to get nuclear weapons, and was also the one to get the MP for real, so it is not at all unrealistic to require everyone to get it. Some have mentioned trying to use the MP to reduce the number of nukes present. Instead why not double the cost of nukes themselves. Then everyone has a more even chance of getting them if they want them, yet there will not so many of them present. So I personally think: - MP should be $3mil. - Everyone should be required to buy the MP to get nukes. - Nukes should cost $1mil for the first one.