Broke system is broke

[Saber]

75%-133% may be too big of a change, I'd rather go with 66%-150% for a start, we can see how that changes the mechanic and then potentally move down to 75%-133%.

It's true that 50-200% may be too wide of a field. About 50k border, I'm not sure. It all depends on how many people are in upper ranges, with only 300ish people above 50k, it's quite possible that in some wars certain people will be unreachable. That could be annoying/problematic.

[Gustave5436]

75%-133% may be too big of a change, I'd rather go with 66%-150% for a start, we can see how that changes the mechanic and then potentally move down to 75%-133%.

I also like the idea of 67%-150%

[sayton]

alden ... im ganna eb the bigger man and just stop posting here. .cauase you obviously dont understand anything..

you said yourself that you stand NOCHANCE with anyone greater than you.. im saying that you DOstand a chance against those nations.. and a very high on at that.. :-D i can point one out of youde like

[Ephriam Grey]

Me

Him

Infra49997740

Tech2400760

Land27331348

NS3461034693

Here, I formatted the chart for ya, for ease of use.

Code:

[table][row][cell][/cell][cell]Me[/cell][cell]Him[/cell][/row]
[row][cell]Infra[/cell][cell]4999[/cell][cell]7740[/cell][/row]
[row][cell]Tech[/cell][cell]2400[/cell][cell]760[/cell][/row]
[row][cell]Land[/cell][cell]2733[/cell][cell]1348[/cell][/row]
[row][cell]NS[/cell][cell]34610[/cell][cell]34693[/cell][/row][/table]

Edited April 15, 2008 by Ephriam Grey

[Meer Republic]

I personally think the 75-133 would be a good starting point. With this second formula change nations are getting more compressed so it makes sense to divide up the brackets more tightly.

[Hime Themis]

Good Persons

If I may support the indications by Admin of a reduction of the attack Range. I am relatively new at 200 days but certainly feel that this along with the NS changes will tighten up the landscape and add some flavour to the combats that are fought. I am not certain I agree that Armed forces should be quite so heavily discounted as they were but I play the system as it is not was. A reduction of the attack spread would if we ever see a "fair" fight again require a new level of Strategic planning which in my view would be welcome. I would suggest even an 80% to 120% spread would not be out of order as we have seen significant reductions in Military NS modifiers.

Respectfully

Page Hime Themis

[LeVentNoir]

alden ... im ganna eb the bigger man and just stop posting here. .cauase you obviously dont understand anything..

you said yourself that you stand NOCHANCE with anyone greater than you.. im saying that you DOstand a chance against those nations.. and a very high on at that.. :-D i can point one out of youde like

Once I ran a spell check i found my self intrigued as to how a nation of say, 20k to 25k NS could ever think to stand a chance vs me, a 40k nuclear nation? For the record here are my stats and i have also chosen a nice nation to compare to. (he was top of the list when i clicked nation rankings.)

Me

Him

Infra65993999

Tech1600846

Land22161574

NS40,30222,419

Please tell me how he could win vs me. I really need this info for my alliances guides. (I mean win, as in who is left fighting last, now who causes more $$ damage)

[Cruxador]

I'm gonna pipe up and say that I too think the NS range could stand to be tightened up. I actually agree with Hime Themis in that a 20% range might work best, although I'm a bit apprehensive about any change that big. It could, after all, leave some people in an alliance war with no-one to attack. All in all, though, I think It'll work out great. It'll even reduce tech raiding, so new members are more likely to stay.

[LeVentNoir]

Good Persons

If I may support the indications by Admin of a reduction of the attack Range. I am relatively new at 200 days but certainly feel that this along with the NS changes will tighten up the landscape and add some flavour to the combats that are fought. I am not certain I agree that Armed forces should be quite so heavily discounted as they were but I play the system as it is not was. A reduction of the attack spread would if we ever see a "fair" fight again require a new level of Strategic planning which in my view would be welcome. I would suggest even an 80% to 120% spread would not be out of order as we have seen significant reductions in Military NS modifiers.

Respectfully

Page Hime Themis

You actually want 80 to 125% Reciprocals ftw.

[Fort Pitt]

i dont like the current NS changes...

tightening the NS range of attack would be good too

[JoshuaR]

Agreed, current system allows for too much stomping. Tightening up would be useful. We can start small though.

Maybe we could institute a quick one hour "you can attack anyone weaker than you" clause though... We have a ghost at MFO that's been there for a long while and is just so weak and out of range...

[TheDave]

Agreed, current system allows for too much stomping. Tightening up would be useful. We can start small though.

Maybe we could institute a quick one hour "you can attack anyone weaker than you" clause though... We have a ghost at MFO that's been there for a long while and is just so weak and out of range...

We have lots of new recruits who I am sure would like a bit of war training, some are very low NS. Pop by GDA if you have a diplomat with us

z10.invisionfree.com/jsd2k

#GDA on Coldfront

[uaciaut]

75%-133% may be too big of a change, I'd rather go with 66%-150% for a start, we can see how that changes the mechanic and then potentally move down to 75%-133%.

It's true that 50-200% may be too wide of a field. About 50k border, I'm not sure. It all depends on how many people are in upper ranges, with only 300ish people above 50k, it's quite possible that in some wars certain people will be unreachable. That could be annoying/problematic.

Agreeing with this man right here.

Also i've been meaning to suggest a change for the borders for a long time, damn you Syzy for beating me to it again

Will we be expecting this change for both war slots and spy ones? I'd say yes btw D:

[DougZ37]

I think that the war ranges definately need to be changed a lot. I'm not sure if that means 66-150, but I think that 75-133 sounds like a really good place to start because at very worst you'll have nations that are at least comperable enough that preparation can make the war even. For example, if a nation attacks one 50% its size even if that smaller nation has a huge warchest it has little ability to resist that bigger nation for very long. But in the case of a smaller attacking range if that smaller nation is prepared it has a fighting chance which is somethnig that this game needs. War has no costs right now because people can just stomp with their allies, triple team their few big nations and then stomp at 50% everyone else, and this would at least mitigate that to some extent.

definately shrink the ranges

[Thorr]

Tightening up the attack range and increasing the amount infra gives is the real solution. 75 - 133 % and making infra worth 10 per level or reduce everything else. I have posted before infra is the key to this game.

Originally this game allowed you only to attack a very small range and we all got along fine way back then. There was some issues of a lot of nations similar in strength so the people couldn't attack anyone without playing with nation strength. As I remember it was 50 below and 50 above you in strength.

Capping nation strength at 50000 is not the way to solve it either getting 50000 is too easy. Maybe 100000 should be cap.

[Syzygy]

Well I think the main problem with the attack range is not so much the worth of infra or tech when it comes to NS.

The currently used war-system has some significant flaws:

- tech-looting from guys who have significantly lower tech than you have. Imho the max amount of techloot you can make in a successful ground battle should be limited to 5*(defendertech/attackertech). If someone with 1,000 tech loots someone with 500tech, he would only get 5*0.5 = 2.5 loot. For a reason, there is just not as much useful stuff there for him. What do US troops "loot" in afghanistan? Nothing. Because their "techlevel" is not even worth looting something.

- techdeals. I hate to say it, but one reason for the current awesomely high NS levels is the fact that no highlevel nation buys tech for itself. Even while they have a dozen millions pure profit per day, they can continue to purchase 100tech for 3M, which is just peanuts. Most of these nations would have NEVER reached these techlevels without techdeals. This is also a reason why new players have such a hard time to catch up in the ranks. As example: I have around 8,000tech on my nation. Even if a new player starts *right now*, he would need at least 1 year only to get up to 8,000tech with tech imports. So, even if I would do just *nothing* for more than a year, he could not catch up (because he had to buy all the infra and wonders also). This whole techdealing concept not only leads to a scenario where we will see nations with more tech than infra in the future (since tech costs no upkeep, there is no reason to ever stop importing it), it will also lead to the scenario that new players get discouraged from even playing because it takes THAT LONG to grow in here. Not skill, just time is a very deciding factor. It also totally removes the purpose of -%tech cost resources, improvements and wonders. Its a painful cut, but I truly see no other chance to stop it than to give big nations harsh penalties for importing tech from low level nations. It should just not be possible for a 50tech nation to send away tech to a 8,000tech nation. Maybe a solution would be that tech can only be transferred within your own strength range or only between nations who are within a tech-range. Would it kill the techbusiness? The classical way, yes. But if the aid-amount restrictions are opened too, there could be a new business for all ranges of nations. 10k NS nations could buy 50tech from 5k NS nations for 3M. 20k NS nations could buy 50tech from 10k NS nations for 8M. 100k NS nations could buy 50tech for 20M from 50k NS nations. And so on.

- the costs of war: right now, war is cheap, way too cheap to fund. I make around 11 million cash profit every day, and even a FULL replacement of my army (up to 127,500soldiers + 12,750tanks) would cost me not even 10% of my income. but it SHOULD cost me a LOT. Fact is in RL you can feed and eqip a whole pakistani army for the costs of 1 US brigade. Why is that? Because STRONGER units usually cost MORE. But in CN it is the other way round. The more improvements and boosting resources you have, the CHEAPER your army is. It should be in a way that stronger soldiers, tanks, airforce should cost a lot MORE than weak stuff, both in purchase and upkeep. The fact alone that you pay the same upkeep for an F22 like for a MiG is lulz. Way out: every +X% boost in soldier efficency or battle strength (from tech) should also cause an +0.5X% boost in upkeep and purchase cost. Aircraft purchase costs should not go up linear, but exponential and the upkeep should depend on level. So, my high-tech army should cost me a LOT MORE per unit than it would cost me if I had them running around in rags and armed with AK47 like some african rebel fighters.

- destruction levels: right now you can beat weeks after weeks on strong nations and you will hardly penetrate their fat infrashield. Destruction potential should be based on your technological level, so the big guys do bigger hits to each other, while the small guys are not affected. Even nukes are no real threat any more these days, just because 150infra is no big deal for a 12k infra nation. You replace that in less than one week, without any aid from the outside. Basically a +1% damage bonus per 100tech you have more than your opponent would suffice.

Fact is, the nations nowadays earn WAY more cash than the wars burn. This directly results in an ever-growing inflation spiral, which discourages new players from starting. Only way out is to make wars a LOT more devastating, for loser AND winner, like it was 1-2 years ago when even the victor had to lick his wounds afterwards and 10damage from CMs or 150 from nukes still had a significant impact.

Edited April 21, 2008 by (DAC)Syzygy

[Thorr]

I will aggree with you on those facts. War needs to be more costly for large nations. The 20 infra damage by land attacks air attacks need to increase according to nation strengths. Nukes need to do 10 percent of your infra in damage. There has to be a 12 hour interval between attacks then so blitz attacks aren't incredibly outrageous damage. Tech selling needs to be so that nations cannot send to a nation with more than 1000 tech then that nation has. A 300 tech nation can only send tech to a nation of 0 to 1300. A 1100 nation can only send tech to a 100 to 2100 tech nation.

Though the downfall is rogues. Thus you have to tighten the attack ranges so rogues cannot suicide on extremely large nations doing extremely high damage with nukes and suiciding themselves. Once again you have to tighten the range of attack and increase the value of infra to prevent that situation.

Edited April 21, 2008 by Thorr