Jump to content

Manhattan Project Change


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1329244738' post='2920447']
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]


Tournament Edition is, in fact, fair as it is. Everyone starts at the exact same place. 5mil in the bank, and one point of infrastructure. Everything from there on is entirely based on your own knowledge, skill, and experience. Making the MP cheaper isn't going to make new players any more knowledgeable, any more skillful, or any more experienced. Is there a disparity in knowledge, skill, and experience? Absolutely. Is there any easy way to educate yourself, make yourself more knowledgeable, skillful, and experienced? Yes. Join an alliance, read some guides, and play the game. The playing field isn't exactly level, but if you're willing to put in 5 minutes a day it's pretty easy to take the high ground.

Actually yes, join a good alliance is actually a valid response. My contention is that the game is fair, but not everyone is equally capable of playing it. Therefor, changing the game is not the answer; educating the players is. And players get educated by joining a decent alliance. So, everyone should join a decent alliance, get themselves educated, and get nukes. Joining a good alliance isn't that hard either. The Warriors, for example, admit just about anyone to the training AA. Members of said training AA have access to our guides. The same guide that got me to where I am right now.

I am aware that not everyone can get into the top 5%. But ANYONE certainly can. It is also entirely possible for anyone to get EITHER into the top 5% or to an infra level where they can afford the MP at its current price.

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.

You can't help out EVERY new player without completely nerfing the game and removing everything that requires an ounce of skill or thought. Instead, the rational thing to do is make everything learnable, and then let alliances and experienced players teach the newbs. Which is the EXACT SYSTEM WE HAVE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW, and that's why I don't think we need to change it. There are certainly parts of this game I think could be improved/added to, but changing the cost of the MP isn't one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328489227' post='2915159']
1. MP is not part of the nuke cost.
2. I can predict the future.
3. "The advantage of the 5% is their better skills" MP cost is not going to affect the 5% one way or another. The 5% is very fluid anyways, so if its the 5% advantage you want to remove, try another suggestion. this one wont do it.
4. I am not a newbie nor a new comer. Trust me when I say that your suggestion is crap, and will only result in a greater buildup of nukes. something that we have been trying to reduce.
5. By reading #4, you should realise why we have been arguing against it, even thought you appear to be new, and dont know any different.
6. End of discussion.
[/quote]
^^^^^^ Some people just don't get it, either because they refuse to open their eyes or they simply cannot understand what they are seeing. I cannot believe you made me agree with Stevie :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1329321041' post='2921064']
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?


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]
[img]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/131/351/eb6.jpg?1307463786[/img]

You're putting an awful lot of words in his mouth. Let me 'splain it for you.

The first quote, sir pwnage is taken out of context. Try reading the rest of it. The part you're quoting has an implicit "if players want to learn to play the game successfully," at the start. It's kinda like walking up to a sports team and saying, "So, everyone should practice." Of course they don't [i]have[/i] to practice, but it's unlikely they will be any good without. And so it's also unlikely for alliance-less players to get nukes, or be very successful in general. [size="1"]Before you point out "unaligned" nations that are doing pretty well this round, I can tell you that [i]all[/i] of them have some sort of backing from an alliance, even if only for trades.[/size]

In the second quote, sir pwnage is correct. You are wrong. Any player ranked from 5.01% to last place has the opportunity to reach rank 5.00% to first place. They have [i]access[/i] to that advantage. It's not hard to attain that rank. Just following the "guide" I posted earlier would give pretty much any nation the ability to get there at some point in the round. Sure it becomes harder once every single player follows it, but then all that is needed is a slightly more detailed guide. Which most of the top 20 or so alliances will have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1329321041' post='2921064']
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]

I don't believe everyone should have nukes. Jraener is correct in saying that I believe everyone who WANTS nukes should join an alliance and educate themselves in how this game works. That will work. That will get them nukes. They will also enjoy the game more and make some friends as a result. Your idea, on the other hand, just puts nukes in the hands of a bunch of inexperienced newbs and, let's not forget, malicious re-rolls that just want to harass the lower tier of an alliance under the banner of some populist movement.

Raising the cost of the MP made it harder to get nukes. It is still not impossible if you just join an alliance and pay attention for 5 minutes. Nobody has made it harder for "the 95%" to join an alliance. Nobody has made it harder for the 95% to build their nations well. And if the 95% would do those two things, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to buy the Manhattan Project at its current price.

[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]

No, the 95% cannot get nukes without the MP. But you know what they can do? Get the MP. Fairly easily, too. Because like I said, everyone starts off at the EXACT SAME NS, with the exact same amount of money. You can't get around that. We all start at square one. If you want to make it to square :nuke: , then learn to build your nation better.


And for the love of Admin, before you keep trying to paint me as some elitist 1-percenter that's trying to keep down the little guy, check my SE alliance affiliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is not whether or not it's fair for the top 5% to have an advantage through easy access to nukes, but whether or not it's good for the game.

As an example, consider the peak infra change. I was initially opposed to it, because I felt it removed the strategic risk of fighting and removed the consequences of war. Even though losers would be trapped at lower infrastructure points, and would not be able to engage better-developed alliances, diminished alliances could still go to war with each other. By adding the risk of loss, it increased the importance of political play as an alliance that was stomped down would not be politically relevant.

However, after the implementation, the result was that TE improved as every alliance remained on the same table. Defeated alliances remained in the same bracket as victorious alliances, and remained politically viable on the top tier, and as the cost of going to war was reduced, wars became more frequent.

That is unfair to victorious alliances, because previously, as a reward for victory, they could shove a winning alliance from political relevance. Yet, when the change was made, TE improved as a result.

===

Now, regarding this change in itself, one big advantage of the 5% rule is that in TE, alliances can choose to either improve their economic ability, resulting in long-term gains, or focus on military preparedness, resulting in short-term power. Part of the advantage of the 5% rule is that alliances focused on long-term gains can get free nuclear weapons as a bonus. It helps to alleviate the risks inherent in a preoccupation with the long-term.

However, with the increase in MP cost, it becomes the case that the cost of MPs is now so prohibitive that a short-term strategy is nearly inviable, removing the strategic choices available to alliance leaders. Instead of creating strategic options, it just means that the optimum choice is to race for the top and to hope that you can bulk nukes at that level, even if it means buying expensive planes to reach 5%.

===

There are some benefits to the 5% rule, however. For example, by making it so that the top tier of players has access to cheap nuclear weapons, it means that they end up being resented by the rest of the game. Just from my experience, though, and I know the game has changed a lot since I last played, most of the organizations don't have the guts to go after the top.

It's also a strategic advantage, it's akin to possessing the hill at the top of the game, and presents an incentive not to go to war. If you want to settle some scores against a stronger opponent, then sit out a given round of wars, continue building, and bulk nukes with 5% free nukes. With the current structure, it is already highly incentivized to go to war and removing the incentive to occupy the top 5% reduces the amount of strategic options in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1329468650' post='2922443']
The issue is not whether or not it's fair for the top 5% to have an advantage through easy access to nukes, but whether or not it's good for the game.

As an example, consider the peak infra change. I was initially opposed to it, because I felt it removed the strategic risk of fighting and removed the consequences of war. Even though losers would be trapped at lower infrastructure points, and would not be able to engage better-developed alliances, diminished alliances could still go to war with each other. By adding the risk of loss, it increased the importance of political play as an alliance that was stomped down would not be politically relevant.

However, after the implementation, the result was that TE improved as every alliance remained on the same table. Defeated alliances remained in the same bracket as victorious alliances, and remained politically viable on the top tier, and as the cost of going to war was reduced, wars became more frequent.

That is unfair to victorious alliances, because previously, as a reward for victory, they could shove a winning alliance from political relevance. Yet, when the change was made, TE improved as a result.

===

Now, regarding this change in itself, one big advantage of the 5% rule is that in TE, alliances can choose to either improve their economic ability, resulting in long-term gains, or focus on military preparedness, resulting in short-term power. Part of the advantage of the 5% rule is that alliances focused on long-term gains can get free nuclear weapons as a bonus. It helps to alleviate the risks inherent in a preoccupation with the long-term.

However, with the increase in MP cost, it becomes the case that the cost of MPs is now so prohibitive that a short-term strategy is nearly inviable, removing the strategic choices available to alliance leaders. Instead of creating strategic options, it just means that the optimum choice is to race for the top and to hope that you can bulk nukes at that level, even if it means buying expensive planes to reach 5%.

===

There are some benefits to the 5% rule, however. For example, by making it so that the top tier of players has access to cheap nuclear weapons, it means that they end up being resented by the rest of the game. Just from my experience, though, and I know the game has changed a lot since I last played, most of the organizations don't have the guts to go after the top.

It's also a strategic advantage, it's akin to possessing the hill at the top of the game, and presents an incentive not to go to war. If you want to settle some scores against a stronger opponent, then sit out a given round of wars, continue building, and bulk nukes with 5% free nukes. With the current structure, it is already highly incentivized to go to war and removing the incentive to occupy the top 5% reduces the amount of strategic options in the game.
[/quote]
I agree and disagree with some of this. I disagree with the cahnges in peak infra. It has created a situation like you explained, one in which there is little to no consequence for winning or losing a war and thusly has lessoned the value of politics. This is Tournament Edition and in any tournament individuals or teams get knocked out as it progresses. Oh, to bring back the consequences of losing a fight.

As to the top 5% I agree with you, there should be the perk of being in the top 5% it changes constantly throughout the round anyway.

As to the overall effects of infra peak change and the the top 5% and MP changes. I see them as washing each other out. What I mean is that the infra peak change does remove the consequence of war and thereby makes wars more prevelant. The top 5% and the 10 mil cost for the MP, make sitting back and collecting cash for the MP purchase or so you can rebuild and even in many situations to flag run, reduce wars in many instances. The tendency is one of early wars which are rampant and late round stagnation with the big wars nearer the end of round just as it was pre-infra peak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to change or fix the Manhattan Project.
What you need to change or fix is the SDI.
I could probably count on one hand the # of posts I have seen where someone actually thinks it is doing what it is supposed to be doing. Which is basically blocking 60% of the incoming nukes.

If nothing else then add a Wonder/Wonders or Improvement/Improvements that could up your odds of blocking nukes to 65, 70, hell even 75%.
That would sure put a dent in the "nukes being everything" rule.
Instead of getting rid of the MP you just make it not as strong or effective.

Don't know the exact figures but I would sure as hell hope it would be higher than a 60% chance that our military has of stopping incoming nukes on our country.

My 2 cents on the subject anyways. :nuke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SDI has a 50% chance of blocking a nuke, from observations made on the actual in-game effects. People only think it is broken because of things like going an entire round of war without blocking a single nuke (on average, 1 in 16 nations will have this happen). It's a cognitive bias, thinking that results of previous attempts will affect subsequent attempts. They don't, it's 50%, every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1330751200' post='2932391']
SDI has a 50% chance of blocking a nuke, from observations made on the actual in-game effects. People only think it is broken because of things like going an entire round of war without blocking a single nuke (on average, 1 in 16 nations will have this happen). It's a cognitive bias, thinking that results of previous attempts will affect subsequent attempts. They don't, it's 50%, every time.
[/quote]
I agree that it's not broken because I had to nuke a guy 6 times to get through his SDI :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did it go to 50% of nukes blocked?
Did they make it lower just for TE?
I only ask as this is copied and pasted from the SE version:

Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) - $75,000,000 - Reduces odds of a successful nuclear attack against your nation by 60%. The SDI wonder also requires 3 satellites and 3 missile defenses and those satellites and missile defenses cannot be deleted once the wonder is developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Devil Dog' timestamp='1330755460' post='2932410']
When did it go to 50% of nukes blocked?
Did they make it lower just for TE?
I only ask as this is copied and pasted from the SE version:

Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) - $75,000,000 - Reduces odds of a successful nuclear attack against your nation by 60%. The SDI wonder also requires 3 satellites and 3 missile defenses and those satellites and missile defenses cannot be deleted once the wonder is developed.
[/quote]
TE version:
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) - $1,500,000 - Reduces odds of a successful nuclear attack against your nation by 60%. The SDI wonder also requires 3 satellites and 3 missile defenses and those satellites and missile defenses cannot be deleted once the wonder is developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1330751200' post='2932391']
SDI has a 50% chance of blocking a nuke, from observations made on the actual in-game effects. People only think it is broken because of things like going an entire round of war without blocking a single nuke (on average, 1 in 16 nations will have this happen). It's a cognitive bias, thinking that results of previous attempts will affect subsequent attempts. They don't, it's 50%, every time.
[/quote]
This.

It's like flipping a coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Wes.
Was pretty sure it was 60% in TE also.

Whether it was 50 or 60% if there was an improvement or wonder that could up those odds it would sure help even things out when a non nuclear nation has to take on a nuclear one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1330888154' post='2933273']
I realize the game guide says 60%. I'm going off of observed thwarted vs direct hit nukes in the game. The distribution is consistent with 50%, not 60%. Therefore, the game guide is inaccurate.
[/quote]
There are still those anomolous long streaks, like quin blocking 19 in a row last round, but overall it did seem to balance out to roughly 50/50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...