Forward Posted September 15, 2013 Report Share Posted September 15, 2013 Last round, Most Destructive War awards were huge - 2 flags and 10 donations. And when I say that, I really do mean 2 flags and 10 donations - because any pair of people hoping to win the award was cooperating with each other to maximize recorded damages through purchasing pointless amounts of land post-ZL, opening up to aircraft attacks, avoiding SDIs, etc. This then provided a huge incentive to "game the game" to unproductive levels. One suggestion has been to record damage dealt - this would be an improvement, but raids and tactics similar to those I mentioned earlier would still distort any measurement. A better fix, however, would be to record value destroyed - an index reflecting the cost of all infrastructure, land, and technology destroyed in war - i.e. destroying 500 infra from 5000 to 4500 would be worth more than destroying 500 infra from 2000 to 1500. This could be calculated off of the base purchase costs of the infra/land/tech (disregarding cost reduction multipliers) destroyed assuming purchases of 1 unit at a time, or some other means. While certainly imperfect, this would be an improvement to last round's system. Suggestions welcome. ADDENDUM: It is noteworthy that all of R26's non-NS awards were "losing flagrunners' awards:" that is, only nation builders with relatively large warchests could win single-war destruction awards or casualty crowns, but the conventional flagrunners who ended up with NS titles would generally have had a walk in the park picking up one or more such awards if they opted to spend their money towards achieving that goal. A "value destroyed" award (or even a "damage dealt" one) rectifies this to some extent, giving a slight edge to people who fight often, although it is both impossible and unfeasible to change this completely (e.g. a "most mediocre" or "worst nation" award would be comic, but pointless). It is definitely reasonable to offer large awards for "losing flagrunners' awards" to encourage some form of activity rather than saving and building, although 2 flags and 10 donations seems excessive (a "value destroyed" award would admittedly cut this to 1 flag and 5 donations, which is fine). Non-NS awards could equal but probably should not exceed conventional NS awards, which remain a crucial part of the game both revenue- and play-wise. Finally, on a personal note, I hadn't even noticed until today that the 1st place NS award was cut to 4 donations (was it for last round, even?), but anyhow it should at least match the highest non-NS prize in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted September 15, 2013 Report Share Posted September 15, 2013 Last round, Most Destructive War awards were huge - 2 flags and 10 donations. And when I say that, I really do mean 2 flags and 10 donations - because any pair of people hoping to win the award was cooperating with each other to maximize recorded damages through purchasing pointless amounts of land post-ZL, opening up to aircraft attacks, avoiding SDIs, etc. This then provided a huge incentive to "game the game" to unproductive levels. One suggestion has been to record damage dealt - this would be an improvement, but raids and tactics similar to those I mentioned earlier would still distort any measurement. A better fix, however, would be to record value destroyed - an index reflecting the cost of all infrastructure, land, and technology destroyed in war - i.e. destroying 500 infra from 5000 to 4500 would be worth more than destroying 500 infra from 2000 to 1500. This could be calculated off of the base purchase costs of the infra/land/tech (disregarding cost reduction multipliers) destroyed assuming purchases of 1 unit at a time, or some other means. While certainly imperfect, this would be an improvement to last round's system. Suggestions welcome. ADDENDUM: It is noteworthy that all of R26's non-NS awards were "losing flagrunners' awards:" that is, only nation builders with relatively large warchests could win single-war destruction awards or casualty crowns, but the conventional flagrunners who ended up with NS titles would generally have had a walk in the park picking up one or more such awards if they opted to spend their money towards achieving that goal. A "value destroyed" award (or even a "damage dealt" one) rectifies this to some extent, giving a slight edge to people who fight often, although it is both impossible and unfeasible to change this completely (e.g. a "most mediocre" or "worst nation" award would be comic, but pointless). It is definitely reasonable to offer large awards for "losing flagrunners' awards" to encourage some form of activity rather than saving and building, although 2 flags and 10 donations seems excessive (a "value destroyed" award would admittedly cut this to 1 flag and 5 donations, which is fine). Non-NS awards could equal but probably should not exceed conventional NS awards, which remain a crucial part of the game both revenue- and play-wise. Finally, on a personal note, I hadn't even noticed until today that the 1st place NS award was cut to 4 donations (was it for last round, even?), but anyhow it should at least match the highest non-NS prize in the future. I think you'd find the majority of TE disagreeing with you here. I'd say the majority of TE players don't play for the NS crown. They play for war. Your imagination thinking otherwise seems to have clouded where you think the prizes should go. Straight damage or value of damage done over the whole round seem to be a better way to go about the first place prize for TE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forward Posted September 15, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2013 I'd agree that most don't play for an NS crown. Then again, as I noted, all awards are highly exclusive to top players (especially depending on the value of the prize and the incentive to aim for it), and given the ease of reallocating resources from NS to something else, the NS award (which has always gone to the most superior prize-winner in the past) may as well offer at least a top prize if it is to remain. (For example, it would be highly strange if the approximate 20th-"best" nation builder got a mediocre prize for ending the round with the top NS, which is the easiest and most understandable measure of so-called "success" in a round.) Not that an NS award necessarily has to remain, but then again, as I said, suggestions welcome :) (and not in a sarcastic way, either). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted September 15, 2013 Report Share Posted September 15, 2013 I'd agree that most don't play for an NS crown. Then again, as I noted, all awards are highly exclusive to top players (especially depending on the value of the prize and the incentive to aim for it), and given the ease of reallocating resources from NS to something else, the NS award (which has always gone to the most superior prize-winner in the past) may as well offer at least a top prize if it is to remain. (For example, it would be highly strange if the approximate 20th-"best" nation builder got a mediocre prize for ending the round with the top NS, which is the easiest and most understandable measure of so-called "success" in a round.) Not that an NS award necessarily has to remain, but then again, as I said, suggestions welcome :) (and not in a sarcastic way, either). I think you're stuck in the past. Giving an award, let alone the top award, to something based on something other than NS building opens up competition to more than just the top players (I assume you mean top NS builders, since top players can be taken in different ways). This give the ability for the majority of players, who we both agree don't play TE for NS, a chance to be rewarded at the end of the round. More incentive to the masses could mean more players (or at least, better retention rates). There's no need for NS to remain the top prize. A prize? Sure, but why make the top prize something that not the majority of players go for? It doesn't make sense. But war? Absolutely. Now, we both said something based on the whole round (and not just one war would make sense), but the prizes last round is a great start to giving more people a chance at the top prize. Re the easiest and understandable thing of success- sure, that is true. NS is easy to measure. I don't know if I would call it the biggest success though. Just because something is harder to measure doesn't mean it isn't a bigger success. Why take the easy way out and say because something is easy to measure that it is the biggest success (which is what you are implying with trying to make top NS the top prize)? If you agree that most people don't play TE for NS, then you should agree that the top prize shouldn't go to something that the majority of people don't play for. How to implement the top prize should be the question (most destruction over the round, value of destruction over the round, etc), not which prize (NS, war, casualties) should be the top prize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forward Posted September 15, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2013 It's important to examine the meaning of "go for" before proceeding here. We agree that most people don't "go for" NS. But do most people "go for" war? The answer is no. Why? Because just as they can't win in NS, they can't win in war. I'm sure there are many people who would love to win an NS crown. Many people who would love to win a casualty/destruction crown, too. But they don't really try, because they know they don't stand a chance - and they don't. Yes, people fight wars, to be sure. People build nations, too. But most people don't go for NS prizes, and most people don't go for war prizes, either. The average player can't win any of these material prizes, because everything boils down to nation building in the end. You can't win a casualty crown without money. You can't win a destruction title without money. And, of course you can't win an NS crown without money. Fact is, most people don't play TE to win a "prize." Did last round's system give more people a chance at a prize? I suppose so. Instead of ultra-elite nation builders sweeping the field for 1/2/3 NS, some semi-elite TPCers and then semi-elite people from your AA/Inst's AA (those whom I referred to as "losing flagrunenrs") picked up some prizes (and, er, some very elite TPCers got wiped off the map... ah ha). But even then, you're still elite. And there still would've been no way for "average" players to get near these awards, because everything is still about money in the end. As a side note regarding myself, I only shot for top NS for specific reasons, and am decidedly not doing so for R27, so that's not my motivation for advocating NS as the top prize. Rather, all awards are the same in that they are based on money - and the NS crown is for the best of the best (and the people who donate most, which is obviously important too) - so despite the relative monotony, it should at least offer the same prize amount as other awards. Then again, I don't really care either, and am just putting a thought out there. The awards will be what they will be, and I'm not even sure as to whether/how much I'll play next round. We'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted September 15, 2013 Report Share Posted September 15, 2013 It's important to examine the meaning of "go for" before proceeding here. We agree that most people don't "go for" NS. But do most people "go for" war? The answer is no. Why? Because just as they can't win in NS, they can't win in war. I'm sure there are many people who would love to win an NS crown. Many people who would love to win a casualty/destruction crown, too. But they don't really try, because they know they don't stand a chance - and they don't. Yes, people fight wars, to be sure. People build nations, too. But most people don't go for NS prizes, and most people don't go for war prizes, either. The average player can't win any of these material prizes, because everything boils down to nation building in the end. You can't win a casualty crown without money. You can't win a destruction title without money. And, of course you can't win an NS crown without money. Fact is, most people don't play TE to win a "prize." There was never a war prize before this round. I think a lot more people enjoyed the war prizes over the NS prizes. We saw people buy up to tech levels never seen before and absolutely dismantle their nations because of it. It was glorious. You are right that a lot of it comes down to money. But, there are other things like what wars to get in, what wonders to choose, etc that influence it. Now, guys can pick wonders they want (WRC, etc) and still have fun warring (instead of sitting around building NS) AND have a chance for a prize. We already saw the effects at the end of last round (tech, who to war, etc), and if the prize was damage from the whole round, I think we'd see the competition heat up even more. It's also important to note that nearly no one cared about flag runners last round. Hell, the top TPC nations barely got hit at the end of the round (bibliotech, the last squirrel, etc). No one cared. It was more fun going for the damage than for the NS. Did last round's system give more people a chance at a prize? I suppose so. Instead of ultra-elite nation builders sweeping the field for 1/2/3 NS, some semi-elite TPCers and then semi-elite people from your AA/Inst's AA (those whom I referred to as "losing flagrunenrs") picked up some prizes (and, er, some very elite TPCers got wiped off the map... ah ha). But even then, you're still elite. And there still would've been no way for "average" players to get near these awards, because everything is still about money in the end. You're making a large, and frankly wrong, assumption by trying to call us losing flagrunners. Not one person on my AA was going for any flag. You'll also nations in OP and other AA's that could build instead of war, but it's not as fun for the masses. Even if the average player doesn't have a chance, MORE players do have a chance. And, that makes a difference. As a side note regarding myself, I only shot for top NS for specific reasons, and am decidedly not doing so for R27, so that's not my motivation for advocating NS as the top prize. Rather, all awards are the same in that they are based on money - and the NS crown is for the best of the best (and the people who donate most, which is obviously important too) - so despite the relative monotony, it should at least offer the same prize amount as other awards. Again, just wrong. NS isn't the crown. We've already covered this. Then again, I don't really care either, and am just putting a thought out there. The awards will be what they will be, and I'm not even sure as to whether/how much I'll play next round. We'll see. You seem quite passionate about something when you don't even know if you'll play next round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forward Posted September 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 First off, recall that the main point of this thread is to advocate a value destroyed prize, which we seem to mildly agree on. Then, when it comes to the amounts for each award, it doesn't really matter and we haven't that much influence anyway, eh? Now - nobody cared about "flagrunners" at the end because the round was a wipeout (after the TPCers got into permanent nuke anarchy). Similarly, you weren't "flagrunning" (in the NS sense) because you probably didn't stand a chance that way, but you were actually looking for a flag and got it through the MDW system because no one from the people who were "flagrunning" cared to stop you there. And by MORE players having a chance, I guess you mean people like you - but again, that's fine; this is, after all, advocating a war prize. Finally, some tidbits: -Regarding your mention of OP: from what I observe, OPers don't tend to go for prizes at all, and play for the alliance, which is all fine and good - and they are indeed a top alliance. -NS is still the crown, considering that you had to post a suggestion even for destruction/casualty stats to be saved :P -Also, I type quickly rather than being passionate, but then again that doesn't really matter either, does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 First off, recall that the main point of this thread is to advocate a value destroyed prize, which we seem to mildly agree on. Then, when it comes to the amounts for each award, it doesn't really matter and we haven't that much influence anyway, eh? I'm not debating that. I am debating what should be the biggest prize, which is also something you suggested in this thread. Now - nobody cared about "flagrunners" at the end because the round was a wipeout (after the TPCers got into permanent nuke anarchy). Similarly, you weren't "flagrunning" (in the NS sense) because you probably didn't stand a chance that way, but you were actually looking for a flag and got it through the MDW system because no one from the people who were "flagrunning" cared to stop you there. And by MORE players having a chance, I guess you mean people like you - but again, that's fine; this is, after all, advocating a war prize. I already have two flags from NS. If I wanted another, I would get it. (I don't want another because it's not worth my time.) I didn't mean myself at all. Finally, some tidbits: -Regarding your mention of OP: from what I observe, OPers don't tend to go for prizes at all, and play for the alliance, which is all fine and good - and they are indeed a top alliance. -NS is still the crown, considering that you had to post a suggestion even for destruction/casualty stats to be saved :P -Also, I type quickly rather than being passionate, but then again that doesn't really matter either, does it? You are correct, but that doesn't stop them from having a chance at the most destructive prize. Again, you can argue what you want, but that still doesn't make you right. Like I said before, NS is just easiest to keep track of. It doesn't make it the crown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forward Posted September 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 I also mentioned the argument on what should be the biggest prize, and I'm still pretty sure that "it doesn't really matter and we haven't that much influence anyway" (part of the reason that it was originally an addendum that ended up having more words than intended). Last few rounds you wanted another from NS didn't work out though, did they? Looks like you still wanted another last round after those misses, and clinched it successfully off MDW. OP would have a solid shot at NS prize, too, but they still don't bother going for it. "Again, you can argue what you want, but that still doesn't make you right" is meaningless and can be reversed. I'm also not entirely sure as to what you mean by "the crown," but it doesn't matter either, as per the first sentence of this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) I like the most destructive war, but it's still flag running by another name. Especially when it comes to nukes, it basically comes down to if you can get all the nukes in for the war to win most destruction, and/or interfe with others getting nukes in. This happened to me this round, one of the guys who won hit me did so purely to nuke my nation to keep one of my wars from getting most destruction over his. Combine that with having the most money so you can afford the most tech. Edited September 16, 2013 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 I like the most destructive war, but it's still flag running by another name. Especially when it comes to nukes, it basically comes down to if you can get all the nukes in for the war to win most destruction, and/or interfe with others getting nukes in. This happened to me this round, one of the guys who won hit me did so purely to nuke my nation to keep one of my wars from getting most destruction over his. Combine that with having the most money so you can afford the most tech. Yeah, the nature of most of these awards will be that one has to create a massive nation in order to qualify. Doesn't mean that they should be replaced by any stretch -- I too like the most-destructive award -- but it'd be nice to add a round-long award or two, as well. Most destruction inflicted over the course of the round would be terrific, assuming that it can be added; while that too has an element of 'how much damage can you do and still have roughly $2b in your pocket after each war?', and will thus be won by dealmaster every round, it'd be a great addition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 I also mentioned the argument on what should be the biggest prize, and I'm still pretty sure that "it doesn't really matter and we haven't that much influence anyway" (part of the reason that it was originally an addendum that ended up having more words than intended). Then why are you suggesting it? Oh, because you're trying to change it? And now we're saying no, it's good. Last few rounds you wanted another from NS didn't work out though, did they? Looks like you still wanted another last round after those misses, and clinched it successfully off MDW. Bro, I haven't gone for a flag since like round 18 or something. OP would have a solid shot at NS prize, too, but they still don't bother going for it. "Again, you can argue what you want, but that still doesn't make you right" is meaningless and can be reversed. I'm also not entirely sure as to what you mean by "the crown," but it doesn't matter either, as per the first sentence of this post. Yes, they do not go for it because they don't want to go for NS. They like to war. Reward them for playing TE. That's exactly what admin has rightfully done. I have already dismissed your suggestions as bad and given reasons. Re-read my posts if you don't understand. You used the crown. I was merely repeating it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forward Posted September 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 It's called an addendum for a reason, and as I've said, I don't really care whether or not it is changed (after all, I might not even be here much longer, remember?) - I've presented a case. Your case against it... could use some more development and actual reasoning, it seems. You obviously lost with Muscle Hamsters in R24, with some even worse losses as well, and you've been far from a dominant force lately. Props to you for forgetting your failures so quickly, but are you "stuck in the past"? You may wish you wish that you won every time you tried, but you'd have to do some dreaming to actually reach that conclusion. I'd certainly agree that you've dismissed my latter suggestion, but reasons? Logic? I'm afraid you've got a while to go. Repeating yourself and making irrelevant, false, and red herring claims does not constitute reasoning. As a note, you were the first to refer to anything as "the crown" (or, actually, "not the crown") as some sort of all-important grand prize, as well. I've said just about what I need to say on this issue, the main point is going mainly unopposed, and I'm sure everyone has better things to do, so I'll rest my side at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 It's called an addendum for a reason, and as I've said, I don't really care whether or not it is changed (after all, I might not even be here much longer, remember?) - I've presented a case. Your case against it... could use some more development and actual reasoning, it seems. My case has crushed your suggestion. You can be denial about it, but it doesn't stop what has been said. You obviously lost with Muscle Hamsters in R24, with some even worse losses as well, and you've been far from a dominant force lately. Props to you for forgetting your failures so quickly, but are you "stuck in the past"? You may wish you wish that you won every time you tried, but you'd have to do some dreaming to actually reach that conclusion. We weren't going for the flag then. One of our guys just happened to be in position, but our purpose was to get some guys who haven't played TE before acclimated to it. That was us NOT trying. I'd certainly agree that you've dismissed my latter suggestion, but reasons? Logic? I'm afraid you've got a while to go. Repeating yourself and making irrelevant, false, and red herring claims does not constitute reasoning. As a note, you were the first to refer to anything as "the crown" (or, actually, "not the crown") as some sort of all-important grand prize, as well. This is like debating with a kid. Here's a quote from your OP, "single-war destruction awards or casualty crowns." Who was the first to mention a "crown"? You have yet to disprove anything I've said. So, to make it simple, I've laid it out for you in easy to read bullet points. -...the majority of TE players don't play for the NS crown. They play for war. Straight damage or value of damage done over the whole round seem to be a better way to go about the first place prize for TE. -Giving an award, let alone the top award, to something based on something other than NS building opens up competition to more than just the top players (I assume you mean top NS builders, since top players can be taken in different ways). This give the ability for the majority of players, who we both agree don't play TE for NS, a chance to be rewarded at the end of the round. More incentive to the masses could mean more players (or at least, better retention rates). -There's no need for NS to remain the top prize. A prize? Sure, but why make the top prize something that not the majority of players go for? It doesn't make sense. But war? Absolutely. Now, we both said something based on the whole round (and not just one war would make sense), but the prizes last round is a great start to giving more people a chance at the top prize. Proof for the previous comment: - I think a lot more people enjoyed the war prizes over the NS prizes. We saw people buy up to tech levels never seen before and absolutely dismantle their nations because of it. ...It's also important to note that nearly no one cared about flag runners last round. Hell, the top TPC nations barely got hit at the end of the round (bibliotech, the last squirrel, etc). No one cared. It was more fun going for the damage than for the NS. You have yet to show why any of these aren't true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) I don't really want to get involved, but I do want to voice my opinions here. I agree with Forward's suggestion as well as his viewpoint that you have to be an elite CN builder to gain any of the prizes (if the elites are going for them). Mediocre players still do not stand a chance, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. We give far too many prizes away for mediocrity as it is. bcortell, your arguments are that people want to play TE to wage war, and that is absolutely correct. However, what Forward is saying is that regardless of what prize you're going for, the same foundations apply. Stable economy You deal the maximum damage possible while ensuring that your nation suffers the least amount of damage possible. Even nations that are going for the casualties crown cannot neglect their economy. And you certainly cannot win a prize when you've taken a lot of damage all round. Casualty prizes do not go to the nations that have fought the hardest during wars, nor warred the most. They go to nations with top infra numbers, being why so many NS flagrunners still end up high on the list for casualties. I don't know if people shooting for casualties re-bought infra during war in rounds before Rd.26, but eventually you'll have to repurchase infra to remain competitive in the race for casualties once everyone catches on to that fact, and that'll just make top casualty spots even more unobtainable for the average Joe. (That's fine with me. It doesn't make sense to give everybody prizes just for going to war in Tournament Edition. We all do that... (Well, besides those unaligned multis in Rd.25 that sat at 0 soldiers all round so they'd never get raided. Kill them with fire.)) Anyway, back on topic. What can be said for casualties can be said for Most Destructive War. You'll have to slightly change the wonder set, but nations that go for the Most Destructive War multiple times a round won't even get close. We are still rewarding nations for being elite nation builders - we're just giving them more creative ways to spend their money. The same people that win every round still took all the prizes this round, and it will continue to be so. Again, not necessarily a bad thing. It's pretty much the same contest, just with more forgiving mistakes. But, after you've set up for Most Destructive War, there is huge potential to game the system. We saw several people either going without SDI's (or decommissioning them) hoping to pick a war partner who'd be update active to ensure the same 2 people take each other's 5 nuke slots. People softened their air defenses, and got rid of their missile defenses. Admin didn't encourage a hardcore war where you kick butt and take names. He encouraged a war that ends in a stalemate and no one comes out the victor. That's why MDW being the top prize doesn't make any sense. I think you agree with me there, being why you've suggested instead of MDW, make a nation's war stats for destruction be cumulative throughout the round and not based on the the damages you take. I agree with that. However there is still the opportunity to game the system through raids. Not that I personally mind tech raids in TE, but I think we all agree that the mass raiding in the start of the round killed off a lot of potential players. (Baptism by fire lol) Forward's suggestion to calculate value dealt eliminates the necessity to raid developing micro's, but still rewards those nations that want a damaging war. Also, it encourages players to updeclare rather than downdeclare because the value of their infra/land/tech lost is much more than yours, and I like that. :ehm: EDIT: Samwise used naughty language and the forums didn't edit it out. :x Edited September 16, 2013 by Samwise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewolfe2015 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) The only thing that needs to change is that the award should be based on the average damage of each war a nation engages in during the round. Last round I averaged over 10k per war, only two of my wars were outside of the top 100 rankings. But the award is just another system gaming where you save up your money as long as possible, find a willing partner (or in some nation's situation, ask a friend to leave your AA and fight you) and then rebuild all fight while starting with 1k+ tech and a WRC. Boom, you hit 30k+ damage between the two of you and have a good chance of winning. Meanwhile real people fighting all round don't have a shot because they're taking aggregate damage over the entire round and constantly rebuilding, rather than blowing their load in one shot. The destruction title is a great addition, but it isn't being acquired properly. Edited September 16, 2013 by lonewolfe2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul711 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 Here is my two cents as a member of OP and a person that knows how to build... Traditionally we hunt down flag runners at the end of the round, as do other AAs, but with the changes we got rewarded for warring. I chased the most destructive war, and may or may not have gotten it had some nation not hit my opponent and nuked before I could. It sucked but was fun and this round was filled with much more war and bigger WCs than I have ever seen. I liked the rule changes, do they need tweaked probably, but I like the system rewarding fighting. Casualties and damage are great incentives for that. I do think we need AA awards, probably just banners or something to add to the AAs page, nothing big or game breaking. I can see, however, that flag runners may hate things as they are now for a number of reasons. 1. Flag running before this last round was about being discreet and avoiding war until the last week or so. Now you need to war to get XP and generals to compete with those that are fighting. (again encourages fighting and a plus in my opinion) 2. I know many people that bank on certain AAs fighting each other and hunting down opposing runners to clear a path for their runners. Guess what happened this round, no one cared and no one hit TPC. Only person that I saw get mad or frustrated was Inst because no one would stop AA wide growth or when we did fight we had massive WCS and rebuilt rather quickly. In other words many would-be runners would bank on the politics of TE in their planning which didn't happen this round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 The only thing that needs to change is that the award should be based on the average damage of each war a nation engages in during the round. Last round I averaged over 10k per war, only two of my wars were outside of the top 100 rankings. But the award is just another system gaming where you save up your money as long as possible, find a willing partner (or in some nation's situation, ask a friend to leave your AA and fight you) and then rebuild all fight while starting with 1k+ tech and a WRC. Boom, you hit 30k+ damage between the two of you and have a good chance of winning. Meanwhile real people fighting all round don't have a shot because they're taking aggregate damage over the entire round and constantly rebuilding, rather than blowing their load in one shot. The destruction title is a great addition, but it isn't being acquired properly. Average rewards avoiding wars early. I've suggested in a separate topic early total destruction, and really think that would solve the problem of it being beneficial to skip wars. It would make it so 1 person with 5 10k wars beats 1 with 1 40k war, and introduces an interesting dilemma in terms of how many wars is ideal (assuming you can pick them). Delaying too long between means your 3 wars must compete with others 4 etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) Coming from someone who's successfully flagrun, XP for generals encourages war, yes, but no more than tech raiding like crazy in the beginning of the round to get your peak land purchases up. That way a good portion of your land is discounted for your final purchases, which makes a difference. Also, I'm intrigued by the idea of avg damage dealt. Edited September 16, 2013 by Samwise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewolfe2015 Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Average rewards avoiding wars early. I've suggested in a separate topic early total destruction, and really think that would solve the problem of it being beneficial to skip wars. It would make it so 1 person with 5 10k wars beats 1 with 1 40k war, and introduces an interesting dilemma in terms of how many wars is ideal (assuming you can pick them). Delaying too long between means your 3 wars must compete with others 4 etc. What do you mean by early total destruction? It makes more sense just to put a war threshold to be in the running. Aka, average damage excluding people with less than five total wars during the round's duration. It's what statisticians do all the time to exclude outlier data and it ensures that the winners have dealt an overwhelmingly large amount of data throughout the round rather than in one or two incidents. It also discourages raiding since raiders will now have a disproportionately low damage dealt and put them out of the running early on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 What do you mean by early total destruction? It makes more sense just to put a war threshold to be in the running. Aka, average damage excluding people with less than five total wars during the round's duration. It's what statisticians do all the time to exclude outlier data and it ensures that the winners have dealt an overwhelmingly large amount of data throughout the round rather than in one or two incidents. It also discourages raiding since raiders will now have a disproportionately low damage dealt and put them out of the running early on. War destruction grows as wc's and nations grow. So, a grossly simplified typical nation warring hard throughout would have something looking like: 5k war 8k war 12k war 15k war 20k war Average of 12k damager, total of 60k. In contrast, if you skip the first war it would be more like: 9k war 12k war 15k war 20k war Average of 14k, total of 56k destruction. Sure, you can try and put criteria on it forcing a certain number of war, but average effectively detracts from increased warring. In contrast, someone that wars constantly might have 20k more destruction done but a lower average. I guess it really depends on what the goal is: 1 biggest single war 3-4 largest average wars most damage done To me, the second isn't much of an improvement from the first, it just moves the gaming from last 2 weeks to last 1 month. The third, makes wars in the first weeks count, and makes it a real trade off between building and warmongering. Hope that helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) Just want to bump this- total damage for the whole round seems like the way to go. Edited December 14, 2013 by bcortell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted December 15, 2013 Report Share Posted December 15, 2013 Even if not changing the awards system, adding in tracking total (round) damage would be a great stat. Look at how much people care about casualties, and a strong argument could be made that destruction is at least if not more important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Still think this should be looked into. If someone wants most destructive war, their best bet is to do a single war in this 31 day round towards the end. Conversely, if someone started warring day 3 and wars the entire round they will have no shot at all. The incentives are screwy. And worse case another brag stat would be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.