NEW NATION strength calculations

[Viluin]

I doubt that it was that many.

Also, I've been hit by three nukes and I am telling you straight, two nations with equal infra, tech, land, soldiers, planes, cm's, tanks, wonders, improvements and resources and a million miles from being equal if one has 20 nukes and the other has none. The system was broke and Nukes were undervalued. Its been fixed.

If the other nation wanted nukes so bad it should have bought them when it could, otherwise the claim they have been hard done to is quite weak.

Then perhaps the requirement for nuclear weapons should be changed, because the system is still broken. An NS requirement that goes up over time and is hard to meet because of the extra NS that existing nuclear nations get just isn't fair to new nations.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Viluin

[Starcraftmazter]

I think if anything, nukes should cause NS to be lowered, thereby making it easier for other people to get nukes.

[Meer Republic]

I think if anything, nukes should cause NS to be lowered, thereby making it easier for other people to get nukes.

It's not supposed to be easy. That's the whole point.

[Starcraftmazter]

It's not supposed to be easy. That's the whole point.

You think 4k will make it drastically easier?

Ahahaahahaha.

[TheDave]

You think 4k will make it drastically easier?

Ahahaahahaha.

I missed the bit where he stated that. He said its not supposed to be easy to get nukes. His point is entirely valid no matter what reduction in quantity of NS makes it whaetever term easier to achieve nuclear capability.

[Starcraftmazter]

Then his point is irrelevant to my post, hence he shouldn't have quoted me.

[Meer Republic]

Then his point is irrelevant to my post, hence he shouldn't have quoted me.

How is it irrelevant, you said " to make things easier" I stated it's not supposed to be easy...seems relevant (and pretty easy to understand) to me.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Meercats

[Starcraftmazter]

easier != easy.

[Viluin]

It's not supposed to be easy. That's the whole point.

It's not supposed to be easy, but right now it's getting harder by the day and this update made it even worse. How would you feel if you were a new player and then found out that it's probably going to take more than a year before you could get nukes? And what about 12 months from now, when it'll take even longer for a new nation to get nukes?

Something has to be done or this will get out of hand.

[Count Rupert]

It's not supposed to be easy, but right now it's getting harder by the day and this update made it even worse. How would you feel if you were a new player and then found out that it's probably going to take more than a year before you could get nukes? And what about 12 months from now, when it'll take even longer for a new nation to get nukes?

Something has to be done or this will get out of hand.

If a nation doesn't want to take the time necessary to get into the top 5%, there is a shortcut called the Manhattan Project. I don't see a problem here.

This eliminated a problem which allowed nations to inflate/deflate their nation scores by as much 20k NS. The game is about more than just nukes. There were far more nations affected by the ability of a large nation to deflate his NS by decomming military to the bare minimum, attacking a nation half his size and then maxing his military to now be facing a nation 3 or more times larger than themselves. Soldiers and tanks were simply worth too much NS and that has now been addressed.

[sayton]

I agree with the MHP.. Even though i probably wouldnt buy one if i was a younger nation..?? ide buy more economic ones first.. i guess its possible... and its a good dea

[Viluin]

If a nation doesn't want to take the time necessary to get into the top 5%, there is a shortcut called the Manhattan Project. I don't see a problem here.

This eliminated a problem which allowed nations to inflate/deflate their nation scores by as much 20k NS. The game is about more than just nukes. There were far more nations affected by the ability of a large nation to deflate his NS by decomming military to the bare minimum, attacking a nation half his size and then maxing his military to now be facing a nation 3 or more times larger than themselves. Soldiers and tanks were simply worth too much NS and that has now been addressed.

In the future, the top 5% will consist of old nations who have access to free nuclear capability while everyone else of decent size has to buy an expensive Manhattan project that uses up one of their monthly wonder purchases. That doesn't sound very attractive.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Viluin

[enderland]

In the future, the top 5% will consist of old nations who have access to free nuclear capability while everyone else of decent size has to buy an expensive Manhattan project that uses up one of their monthly wonder purchases. That doesn't sound very attractive.

It doesn't sound too attractive that some new nation can easily build up a nuclear arsenal and cause older nations 500-1000 damage in infra either now does it?

[Viluin]

It doesn't sound too attractive that some new nation can easily build up a nuclear arsenal and cause older nations 500-1000 damage in infra either now does it?

I wouldn't call a 5k infra nation "new".

[enderland]

I wouldn't call a 5k infra nation "new".

http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...ation_ID=201786

That's rather new if you ask me. Buying a MP and nukes will not be too hard for him.

[Count Rupert]

In the future, the top 5% will consist of old nations who have access to free nuclear capability while everyone else of decent size has to buy an expensive Manhattan project that uses up one of their monthly wonder purchases. That doesn't sound very attractive.

And most of those old nations didn't have the access to the huge sums of aid that are being used to boost nations nowadays either. And what the hell do you mean by free nuclear capability. Those in the top 5% weren't just given nukes. They spent significant time developing their nations to be in the position they are in. The top 5% will continue to be influx. There will always be a lot of turnover, particularly at the 5% border. It's just not going to be nations at 12% boosting themsleves into the 5% with military. It will be those in the 6-7% area. Nations will adapt. Right now the wisdom says that if you spend the $100 million on infrastructure instead of the Manhattan Project you'll be in the top 5%. At the moment that is no longer true, then the Manhattan Project will be cheaper than developing your way into the top 5% and hence become a bargain.

[Meer Republic]

How would you feel if you were a new player and then found out that it's probably going to take more than a year before you could get nukes? And what about 12 months from now, when it'll take even longer for a new nation to get nukes?

.

I'd probably feel exactly like I did 481 days ago, but wait here I am now in the top 1.3%, UNPOSSIBLE!!

[SynthFG]

The nuclear threshold has been inflating alarmingly now for months due to the current era of peace on PB

Simply the big alliances / nations aren't hammering on each other so there has been a period of excessive NS growth

The change hasn't made it any easier or harder for a small nation to grow into nuclear range,

Once things settle down the only major consequence will be that the Manhattan Project will be more desirable for nations to obtain as a second mil wonder after SDI

[Terra Extraneus]

I loved when I got my first nuclear weapons at 8k NS back with my old nation. Those were the days.

[Viluin]

<a href="http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...ation_ID=201786" target="_blank">http://cybernations.net/nation_drill_displ...ation_ID=201786</a>

That's rather new if you ask me. Buying a MP and nukes will not be too hard for him.

He obviously received a lot of aid.

And most of those old nations didn't have the access to the huge sums of aid that are being used to boost nations nowadays either. And what the hell do you mean by free nuclear capability. Those in the top 5% weren't just given nukes. They spent significant time developing their nations to be in the position they are in. The top 5% will continue to be influx. There will always be a lot of turnover, particularly at the 5% border. It's just not going to be nations at 12% boosting themsleves into the 5% with military. It will be those in the 6-7% area. Nations will adapt. Right now the wisdom says that if you spend the $100 million on infrastructure instead of the Manhattan Project you'll be in the top 5%. At the moment that is no longer true, then the Manhattan Project will be cheaper than developing your way into the top 5% and hence become a bargain.

The problem is that the Manhattan Project offers no economical benefits, unlike the infrastructure you could've purchased with that money. Nations that are currently in the top 5% won't have to buy a Manhattan project at all.

I'd probably feel exactly like I did 481 days ago, but wait here I am now in the top 1.3%, UNPOSSIBLE!!

2 years from now, the NS requirement for nukes could easily be over 60k. It was roughly 20k when I joined less than a year ago, and that was with the old NS value for tech. It's extremely hard to gain such a high amount of NS within a reasonable time period. The MP would be your only option to become nuclear capable, but it's very expensive. Older nations never had to buy one in the first place.

The only "fair" solution would be to remove the 5% requirement entirely, and make a Manhattan Project the only way to become nuclear capable.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Viluin

[Count Rupert]

The problem is that the Manhattan Project offers no economical benefits, unlike the infrastructure you could've purchased with that money. Nations that are currently in the top 5% won't have to buy a Manhattan project at all.

2 years from now, the NS requirement for nukes could easily be over 60k. It was roughly 20k when I joined less than a year ago, and that was with the old NS value for tech. It's extremely hard to gain such a high amount of NS within a reasonable time period. The MP would be your only option to become nuclear capable, but it's very expensive. Older nations never had to buy one in the first place.

I think as time goes on, a lot of nations in the top 5% will buy Manhattan Projects as a hedge to being knocked out of the top 5%. There are a number who have done so already. If the NS needed to be in the top 5% reaches the area you think it will, only makes the Manhattan Project more attractive. The economic benefits on $100 million start to diminish greatly once you cross the 5k jump and have all the economic improvements making the trade off of giving up economic development for nuclear capability easier to make. You're placing a lot of emphasis on nukes when there is more to the game than nukes. This adds to the decision making needed to play. Do I develop and grow to reach the top 5% or do I forgo some economic development and buy the Manhattan Project. The fact there are trade offs make for a better game. One shouldn't be able to do everything. Like I said, nations will adapt to the new realities. There was just as much screaming and shouting after the amount of NS tech received was adjusted. There were predications that it would totally destroy the tech market. Well, that certainly hasn't happened, if anything the tech market is more robust than ever.

And remember this is a beta and we're all beta-testers. During game development, there are always changes made that give some apparent advantage to some while putting someone else at a disadvantage. Sorry, but it's what happens during game development and why it's called a beta. I happen to think the change will make for a better overall game which is the ultimate goal here.

EDIT, Just saw your edit. I won't have a problem with making the change of eliminating the top 5% requirement for nukes and simply making the requirement be the Manhattan Project. It requires a nation to not only develop to the point of being able to pay for the Manhattan Project, but also make that trade off of economic benefit from the $100 million or nuclear capability. I think that makes for better gameplay.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Count Rupert

[enderland]

The problem is that the Manhattan Project offers no economical benefits, unlike the infrastructure you could've purchased with that money. Nations that are currently in the top 5% won't have to buy a Manhattan project at all.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too Having 20 nukes does not help my economy. In fact, it probably hurts it by somewhere around 500-600k a day which is about 10% of my income. Of course the MP provides no benefits economically. It lets you (almost) always purchase nuclear weapons regardless of your NS.

Maybe I'm just annoyed that when finally, after almost a year of having ~20 nukes hurting my economy daily, when that penalty FINALLY comes to fruition in the accurate represenation of their NS, people complain that it isn't fair.

Well it wasn't fair that to all of us smaller nations carrying 20 nukes that everyone else could easily get their benefits without having to pay a price. Now that is fair.

[Azaghul]

i think that fact is wrong. :-D no offense i think most nations who WANT to do tech deals.. WILL do tech deals. no matter if they have nukes or not.. lol

Not from what I've seen, most are too lazy to put the effort into finding 5/6 sellers and don't think they need that much tech.

Not everyone can afford to use their aid slots exclusively for tech/donation deals.

Most can, and if you can't, then that's your penalty for using your slots for something else. Even if you only use 4 though, you'll still have an advantage in growing into nuclear range.

I think if anything, nukes should cause NS to be lowered, thereby making it easier for other people to get nukes.

Nukes are supposed to be exclusive, that's the point. Otherwise the rules would just let everyone buy them.

[Sebastian]

I do not see why people complain this change makes an army less worth, or nukes that much harder to obtain. Before, having a large army wasn't really an advantage, as it raised your NS so much larger nations could declare on you. Now however, the NS increase you receive should not make that much of a difference in who can attack you, thus having a full military is a meaningful way of protecting you from the first strikes. As for the top 5 being harder to reach, thats exaggerated. Like previously mentioned, the nations who have 20 nukes has an economically disadvantage, so outgrowing them is a possibility. Also, since the system is made so that each nukes gets worth more NS strength wise, the first nuke is still worth only 50 NS. That means that nations reaching top 5% days before you won't get a large NS advantage that unfairly keeps them in top 5%.

To sum it up, great change Admin

[SlayerX46]

And most of those old nations didn't have the access to the huge sums of aid that are being used to boost nations nowadays either. And what the hell do you mean by free nuclear capability. Those in the top 5% weren't just given nukes. They spent significant time developing their nations to be in the position they are in. The top 5% will continue to be influx. There will always be a lot of turnover, particularly at the 5% border. It's just not going to be nations at 12% boosting themsleves into the 5% with military. It will be those in the 6-7% area. Nations will adapt. Right now the wisdom says that if you spend the $100 million on infrastructure instead of the Manhattan Project you'll be in the top 5%. At the moment that is no longer true, then the Manhattan Project will be cheaper than developing your way into the top 5% and hence become a bargain.

I cannot agree with this more. All of the "old nations" had to work to get their nations to be massive. They didn't just join and WHAM they were there. The new nations will have to work too. So stop complaining because everything isn't handed to you on a silver platter.