NEW NATION strength calculations

[enderland]

And again, how does it make sense for everyone in the top 5% to be nuclear capable just because of their rank? Why should they not be forced to buy a MP like everyone else will be soon?

I too will be buying one in approximately 45 days.

[Blacky]

Anything that effects the NS calculation, effects nuclear weapons. In this case, it does so in a way quite different to any other change to NS. As in this case nuclear weapons are effecting which nations can pass the nuclear threshold. An undesirable system, as only nations with nukes, can thus effect their NS in such a way.

It's a complete system design error. If nukes are going to effect NS, then NS can not effect nukes. It's really common sense. It's like changing the sanction formula to make is as though all existing sanctioned alliances gain +10 score

That's what the people arguing against this update are arguing. The reason it will be harder for nations to get into the nuclear range is not because the older nations have played longer, or have more infra. Nay, it will be only for the fact that they managed to buy their Nukes prior. Thus giving them a 4,000 NS advantage which can not be countered any other way, other than buying its equivalent in tech, infra, land and military. Which means nuclear nations must not only be matched in all other fields, but they must be overtaken, because of that 4,000 NS difference. Aquiring 4,000 NS is not easy at that level. Especially since it's expected that the nations ahead of you will not be stagnating. They'll be growing too. Which means you must tirelessly chase their shadow till their economic disadvantage allows you to catch up. (A few 100 days I believe it was calculated.)

It's very easy to see the design error in this.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Blacky

[JoshuaR]

So new nations should be forced to buy a Manhattan Project if they want to become nuclear capable within a reasonable amount of time, when you get free nuclear capability just because you're older and bigger?

The NS requirement for nukes is only going up. Soon, it will be 40k.. 45k.. 50k.. Any new nation joining at that time has no choice but to buy a Manhattan project, or they might get caught up in a nuclear war with no nukes of their own. You, on the other hand, still get free nuclear capability.

Think about it. One infra level will allow you to buy ~10 extra soldiers and ~1 extra tank. Before this update, 1 infra effectively increased your NS by 3 plus an average of 2 potential NS. That's 5 NS per infra level. Now this has been reduced to a tiny bit over 3 NS per infra level. It's going to take significantly longer to get into the top 5%, and eventually it will take too long before you can buy nukes this way.

Uh, the requirement always goes up... Nukes should be exclusive. Or you should invest much time and cash into your research.

Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 34,853 Attacking + 189 Defending = 35,042 Casualties

That's probably why. I don't know about you, but I've lost ~5000 infra in wars during my time here and I'm pretty sure that's nothing special compared to other nations.

So if there were no nukes in this game you would've stopped growing a long time ago?

I think not.

Older nations have the same "short cut", namely a Manhattan project.

Sorry for your wars, but that's no reason to make the requirements for nukes lower.

And thanks again admin for the change. It's very good.

[Starcraftmazter]

I fail to see how being in a neutralist alliance, which give you bucket loads of aid to grow, amounts to good nation management.

Anyone should have the freedom to get nukes in a reasonable amount of time, no matter how they chose to play the game.

[Compstomper]

It is not like nukes are the only weapon in the game. If your that desperate to have them then buy the wonder. Yes 100mill does sting but not that badly.

EDIT: One of the reasons admin added the wonder was so nations could have nukes within a reasonable amount of time.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Compstomper

[Starcraftmazter]

It's unreasonable to have newer players have to pay 100mill to get nukes, while the older players don't have to do anything. If anything, it should be the other way around.

And although nukes aren't the only weapon in the game, it's by far the most effective weapon in the high range of wars.

[JoshuaR]

We have to leave incentives in the game for players to want to play for a while. Otherwise people will come and go very quickly.

[Blacky]

It is not like nukes are the only weapon in the game. If your that desperate to have them then buy the wonder. Yes 100mill does sting but not that badly.

EDIT: One of the reasons admin added the wonder was so nations could have nukes within a reasonable amount of time.

People like you make my day. Mainly because you do not understand what it is exactly that we're even discussing and yet you assume we're complaining for something completely unrelated. Basically, if you don't understand what the other side is arguing, atleast make an effort too before attacking what is not even their opinion. You really do show a lack of understanding in that post.

Uh, the requirement always goes up... Nukes should be exclusive. Or you should invest much time and cash into your research.

It sure does, but not quite in the same way as this. Would you support a change which made it so all sanctioned alliances received a +5 score advantage? Ofcourse not. And this is equally as flawed a system design. If NS effects becoming nuclear, nukes should not effect NS. It's a very simple.

[Meer Republic]

I fail to see how being in a neutralist alliance, which give you bucket loads of aid to grow, amounts to good nation management.

Anyone should have the freedom to get nukes in a reasonable amount of time, no matter how they chose to play the game.

The majority of my growth came while I was in GOONS, hardly neutral or peaceful. I've also never recieved any outside aid other that what I negotiated myself through doing tech deals. Once again as 100's and 1000's of people have proved it is very easy to rise through the ranks.

[Viluin]

The majority of my growth came while I was in GOONS, hardly neutral or peaceful. I've also never recieved any outside aid other that what I negotiated myself through doing tech deals. Once again as 100's and 1000's of people have proved it is very easy to rise through the ranks.

You have managed to rise to 1.3% in 484 days. Do you really think a nation that registers a few months from now could do the same thing? By then, 1.3% equals well over 50K NS and it'll keep rising.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Viluin

[enderland]

And although nukes aren't the only weapon in the game, it's by far the most effective weapon in the high range of wars.

Then why does it matter that you have to be there to buy nukes?

[Compstomper]

People like you make my day. Mainly because you do not understand what it is exactly that we're even discussing and yet you assume we're complaining for something completely unrelated. Basically, if you don't understand what the other side is arguing, atleast make an effort too before attacking what is not even their opinion. You really do show a lack of understanding in that post.

It sure does, but not quite in the same way as this. Would you support a change which made it so all sanctioned alliances received a +5 score advantage? Ofcourse not. And this is equally as flawed a system design. If NS effects becoming nuclear, nukes should not effect NS. It's a very simple.

Oh, yes, I understand. Your unhappy that everybody with nukes has an extra 3k NS. I could say similar things about wonders. I will never be able to have as many wonders as some of the older nations in the game making them ALWAYS have an economic advantage over me. The only difference with nukes is that you can no longer leap in and out of nuke range on a whim. Though, I guarantee you that if you are decent with your nation you could grow into the top 5% without to much trouble. Also, as stated in other posts, this is one of the worst times to try to get into the top 5% as there have been almost no wars recently.

I do agree with you 100% that it does mean it will take you a bit longer to get into the top 5%. However I don't believe that it unbalances the game.

Also, there was no reason to be rude towards me.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Compstomper

[Boondock]

Hey guys, why don't we just let everyone have nukes, then watch as hundreds of people quit because they have nothing to strive for!!

Its a game.

Games are supposed to be hard.

Thats what makes them fun.

Military inflation is gone, that is good. People are complaining about not getting nukes, its really not that hard. I only actually started growing a couple of months ago, before that I was pretty inactive. I jumped into nuke range pretty fast. There are nation in my alliance that are now in nuke range, and weren't made that long ago. If you join the right alliance and build intelligently, you can get to nuke range pretty quickly. It's hard, and it takes intelligence and dedication, but thats the point of the game: Being better. If you are better then me it doesn't matter what my headstart is, you will get into nuke range over me.

[Ski11585]

I agree with the above poster. Games that hand you everything take away the fun. Nukes are now a bit more exclusive, and that's a good thing. Also, if you think it's impossible to rise quickly through the ranks, compare some of top nations in Gramlins. Look at their efficiency compared to some of the other top nations.

Bubbler Nation has an efficiency of about 157. New Syzygia has an efficiency of 221. So yeah, quit complaining and try harder.

[Brother Kane]

If nuke requirements were lowered by a lot, the game would be screwed. Say it was lowered down to a set level of infra/tech (although I'm sure people would still complain that it's too hard to get). If that level were, say, 2k infra and 200 tech which is probably what most people think is "big enough", people would just organize mass aid to be sent to a second nation (15 million, 250 tech), buy 20 nukes, then go nuke rogue on their favorite people. One person could easily destroy thousands of infrastructure every month without anyone knowing it was them. This would be a common practice and people would quit the game because it's too ridiculously unbalanced.

The way it's set up now, nations with around 5k infra can buy the Manhattan Project if they are aspiring to buy nukes instead of having nukes already, then stopping growing because there is no reason anymore.

[Meer Republic]

You have managed to rise to 1.3% in 484 days. Do you really think a nation that registers a few months from now could do the same thing? By then, 1.3% equals well over 50K NS and it'll keep rising.

Sure they could if they're smart...even if they're not wars, boredom and other outside forces would get them a good way there.

[Azaghul]

That's what the people arguing against this update are arguing. The reason it will be harder for nations to get into the nuclear range is not because the older nations have played longer, or have more infra. Nay, it will be only for the fact that they managed to buy their Nukes prior. Thus giving them a 4,000 NS advantage which can not be countered any other way, other than buying its equivalent in tech, infra, land and military. Which means nuclear nations must not only be matched in all other fields, but they must be overtaken, because of that 4,000 NS difference. Aquiring 4,000 NS is not easy at that level. Especially since it's expected that the nations ahead of you will not be stagnating. They'll be growing too. Which means you must tirelessly chase their shadow till their economic disadvantage allows you to catch up. (A few 100 days I believe it was calculated.)

It's very easy to see the design error in this.

Except for a few factors:

- 4000NS is only 8 tech deals.

- You're assuming everyone in the top 5% has 20 nukes (many don't).

- Top 5% nations are deleting, not caring enough to grow efficiently, and getting destroyed in wars all the time.

Also, as stated in other posts, this is one of the worst times to try to get into the top 5% as there have been almost no wars recently.

No great wars, but the wars against NADC and GPA knocked a significant number of top 5% nations below it. The war against GPA knocked GPA from having around 150 nuke capable nations IIRC to 15.

[Viluin]

Sure they could if they're smart...even if they're not wars, boredom and other outside forces would get them a good way there.

There is a point where it becomes factually impossible to reach a certain amount of NS within a certain amount of time, even if your nation management is completely flawless and you get a lot of lucky events.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Viluin

[SoxNation]

Nations with 20 nukes now get 4k NS from them.. It's going to make it considerably harder for smaller nations to get into the top 5%, especially because a large standing military doesn't have a large impact anymore. These 2 changes combined were a bit much imo, just the second was needed.

they still have the manhatten project to get nukes though.. top 5% isn't as important as it used to be.

and not to t00t our horns.. but if you look at what citadel alliances do we have no problem getting our guys into the top 5%, i wouldn't blame the rules but the alliance if they can't get people up there, it's really not that hard with proper aid programs.

[Boondock]

Yes, but that comes around 3-1%. Not even close to 5.

[enderland]

In case you are curious you should look to see what percentage of the newest nuke purchases are from nations with the MP. Quite a few of them.

[JoshuaR]

It sure does, but not quite in the same way as this. Would you support a change which made it so all sanctioned alliances received a +5 score advantage? Ofcourse not. And this is equally as flawed a system design. If NS effects becoming nuclear, nukes should not effect NS. It's a very simple.

I've decided I don't like that I'm 4k NS lower than my peers, so I've finally decided to get nukes. Looking at possibilities, my best option loses me over $950k in income every single day. I'm just short of $1million in losses every single day.

You're comparing being sanctioned, a title, with something that severely impedes economic development. Those without nukes can grow fast enough to get nukes, I'm sure.

[Blacky]

Except for a few factors:

- 4000NS is only 8 tech deals.

- You're assuming everyone in the top 5% has 20 nukes (many don't).

- Top 5% nations are deleting, not caring enough to grow efficiently, and getting destroyed in wars all the time.

Right, so the same is true for the other nations who already have nukes. They too can purchase that amount of tech daily.

Really, the only argument (which was brought up by an intelligent person and then was again thrashed by me) is that nuclear nations have negative economic effects. But still it was calculated in order to make the difference purely economically through infrastructure purchase using that advantage. It would take around 1,300 infrastructure (extra) which would take around 200 or so days. (Depending on the level of Infra)

You're comparing being sanctioned, a title, with something that severely impedes economic development. Those without nukes can grow fast enough to get nukes, I'm sure.

Actually, No. I'm comparing system design. We both can see why it's a system design in the sanction title, yet for some reason you can not fathom why it is not a system design with nukes. It's essentially the exact same thing. Where having the nuclear icon by your name, makes it easier to purchase nukes. The system is flawed, and anyone who can just reason for a minute, can see that.

Nukes should not effect NS if NS effects nukes. Same as sanction status should not effect score if score effects sanction status. Very, very, very simple logic.

[Starcraftmazter]

Then why does it matter that you have to be there to buy nukes?

Because you can attack someone half your size, which tends to be the case in most wars.

[Viluin]

they still have the manhatten project to get nukes though.. top 5% isn't as important as it used to be.

and not to t00t our horns.. but if you look at what citadel alliances do we have no problem getting our guys into the top 5%, i wouldn't blame the rules but the alliance if they can't get people up there, it's really not that hard with proper aid programs.

So if everyone had a proper aid program, everyone would be able to get into the top 5%?

No.. The 5% NS requirement would just rise like mad, like it has been doing for the past few months.

In case you are curious you should look to see what percentage of the newest nuke purchases are from nations with the MP. Quite a few of them.

I wonder why.. :lol:

Edited April 21, 2008 by Viluin