New environment effect

[MrCyber]

I'm not a top nation... roughly top 2%... and I haven't been hit hard at all, like I said before I've lost like 100k per collection. I'm basically shrugging my shoulders at this one. Not supporting, not hating. I really just don't care. Change happens, yes, and if implemented slowly, humans don't resist. But you can't have your cake and eat it.

Business as usual. And personally, I think everyone should just take a chill pill because people can't control their words. Shouldn't have really gotten to that stage in the first place, but meh. Wishful thinking.

So you ARE a top nation. Anyone in the top 10% was NOT or hardly at all affected by this change. The problem is that the other 90% of the players WAS affected severely by this change making it impossible for them to ever get into the top 10%. That's WHY this change is a BAD change. See my previous post in this thread as the reasons why.

[LegoKid]

Admin, you really need to make it easier for little nations... Somehow...

[King Srqt]

I'm not a top nation... roughly top 2%... and I haven't been hit hard at all, like I said before I've lost like 100k per collection. I'm basically shrugging my shoulders at this one. Not supporting, not hating. I really just don't care. Change happens, yes, and if implemented slowly, humans don't resist. But you can't have your cake and eat it.

Business as usual. And personally, I think everyone should just take a chill pill because people can't control their words. Shouldn't have really gotten to that stage in the first place, but meh. Wishful thinking.

I'm not sure what your definition of top is but I think being above 98.1% of the nations in this game makes you one of the top nations.

[Benjamin Smythe]

I'm not sure what your definition of top is but I think being above 98.1% of the nations in this game makes you one of the top nations.

I define "top" as 0-1%. 1-2%, which is where I reside, is for old buggers who have taken some hits over the years. If I were a top nation, I'd be at 1% or below.

Unfortunately, due to wars that's not the case and probably won't be any time soon. But I digress. I'm feeding trolls here, and they will bite the hand that feeds them, so I shall refrain. Given Admin's previous response, I hardly see the changes being totally reversed. In short: "loltrolls".

[Syzygy]

I'm not sure what your definition of top is but I think being above 98.1% of the nations in this game makes you one of the top nations.

I have been PMed by 38 guys so far (ingame, here, other boards) who complained about "how much they are crippled" and after looking at their nations I could tell

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM

that they have just not adapted to the new sitation and are comparing a now "horrible" setup to one that was pretty good before.

ALL OF THEM were silent after I told them to change Gov, Replace some of their improvements with Borderwalls (or to get rid of some military improvements for collection) or change some trades - because they made roughly the same profit like before. And the smaller they are the smaller were their losses.

Right now I have seen dozens of walls-of-texts about how horrible everything is now, how screwed up new nations are now, how unable to catch up everyone is now and so on - and NO ONE was able to link me to ONE SINGLE NATION that was *significantly* hurt (in comparison MORE hurt than ~10-15% profit loss) after it has done the changes in nation setup which are now benefitial.

So, instead of complaining: please post links to nations who are right now "crippled". I have done the math for all sizes of nations and trade setups several times, and whoever made good profits before, will still have good profits now (yes, they lost some, but almost everyone lost some so in comparison nothing will change). Assumptions of nations having lost "30%" or "60%" of their income are just straight lies. Such nations do not exist, never have existed, and never will exist (at least not as result of this update, for this the reduced effect is WAY too weak). You are simply forced to THINK more when planning (chosing your trades, improvements, govsettings, wonders) than before. Correct decisions are rewarded, wrong decisions are penalized.

[IrishX]

That suggestion is horrible.

Except it makes perfect sense.

Would you care at least to explain why you find it horrible?

[sayton]

Does this mean that if i get a NEO now as my next wonder.. since im importing coal,oil,and uranium, i will have perfect environment? So basically, NEO is going to be worth SOOOOOOOOO much to older nations now.??

[bart416]

I have less than 7000 infra (what I would assume you classify as a mid range nation) and I think I actually gained money from this change. It has less to do with the amount of infra you have, and more how you have distributed your growth over land/infra/tech.

The people that got hurt the most are the 10K infra/1K tech/0 land people. People with a more balanced growth in both land and tech were either unscathed or actually benefited from this change. In other words, it brought some life back in to land.

Actually I have those balanced out and I got hurt pretty badly.

[King Srqt]

I have been PMed by 38 guys so far (ingame, here, other boards) who complained about "how much they are crippled" and after looking at their nations I could tell

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM

that they have just not adapted to the new sitation and are comparing a now "horrible" setup to one that was pretty good before.

ALL OF THEM were silent after I told them to change Gov, Replace some of their improvements with Borderwalls (or to get rid of some military improvements for collection) or change some trades - because they made roughly the same profit like before. And the smaller they are the smaller were their losses.

Right now I have seen dozens of walls-of-texts about how horrible everything is now, how screwed up new nations are now, how unable to catch up everyone is now and so on - and NO ONE was able to link me to ONE SINGLE NATION that was *significantly* hurt (in comparison MORE hurt than ~10-15% profit loss) after it has done the changes in nation setup which are now benefitial.

So, instead of complaining: please post links to nations who are right now "crippled". I have done the math for all sizes of nations and trade setups several times, and whoever made good profits before, will still have good profits now (yes, they lost some, but almost everyone lost some so in comparison nothing will change). Assumptions of nations having lost "30%" or "60%" of their income are just straight lies. Such nations do not exist, never have existed, and never will exist (at least not as result of this update, for this the reduced effect is WAY too weak). You are simply forced to THINK more when planning (chosing your trades, improvements, govsettings, wonders) than before. Correct decisions are rewarded, wrong decisions are penalized.

It does effect large nations less.

As Syz has said Infra stops being lucrative at high levels and larger nations do not have much to spend money on, therefore the drop in income will effect them less even if the percentage drop is the same. So now the only thing that will be effected for large nations is there already huge surplus in cash will increase in size at a slower rate.

Smaller nations however need to continue purchasing infra in order to get to the status of "big nation" but the rate that they can do that has been significantly slowed which will allow the current large nations to maintain their edge for a longer period of time.

And again some people don't enjoy the nation building aspect of this game as much as the politics and war aspects increasing focus on the nation building is reducing how enjoyable he game is for those people and the only way to tell if this suggestion is good is to find out if it makes the game more enjoyable for most people.

[LJ Scott]

Except it makes perfect sense.

Would you care at least to explain why you find it horrible?

It's too large a negation. I have 4000+ miles, so at my infra level of 4600 I'd benefit pretty highly from this, i.e. 0.8 better off enviroment wise.

That would give me a pretty good enviroment for someone who has nukes (albeit only 2) and imports uranium, yet I have bothered to swap out for border walls.

Land:infrastructure is already factored into the enviroment formula, we don't need to change how much it's factored in by that much imo.

[Syzygy]

give all nations +20 happiness and +50% pop and most people will hail you because they now make more "virtual cash" and "grow a lot faster" so you could consider this suggestion to make the game more "enjoyable for most players" - would it be a good suggestion? no.

Basically you say that you should not change the growing mechanics at all because there are people in the game who do not care for nation building and you should not force them to waste time to think about nationmanagement at all. Bringing it to the point: "please do not improve the game any more because I am uncomfortable with using my brain like I should as ruler of my nation" or "please do not reward people who play smarter than I do because I do not want to play smart!".

The admin has said before several times: This is a political nation simulator. It is not a "hack and slay wargame" where the only thing that counts is your ability to beat down others as fast and often as you can. War is ONE way to play this game, and it still is. You will see some updates of the war-system as well in the future, going hand-in-hand with this update you are currently complaining about.

If you look at the people in the Top100 you will see that they are NOT there because of evil tricks and you will see that there is also quite a fluctuation during and after every war. Those people are there either because they play VERY disciplined for a LONG TIME or because they grew amazingly fast and their alliances use the political aspects of this game to make sure they can stay unharmed.

Before this update, it was so damn easy to get the same boring static growth like everyone else. All you needed was some aid and a good guide and "brain off". Just follow the checklist and you will most likely grow at the perfect rate. And because everyone (or at least most people) do the same, nothing really happens at all, everyone is moving at the same speed compared ot the others. Right now, bad decisions will hurt you, good decisions reward you. Clever players can grow faster, bad players will fall behind. Discipline, skill and patience is rewarded while laziness or inability to care for your nation by looking at what you do will lead to penalties.

Really, all this discussion looks like the Diablo2 Boards after Blizzard made some changes to the skills and spells: all the guys complained "OMG MY LEVEL80 NECRO IS NOW TOTALLY SCREWED I NEED TO RESTART BLIZZARD SUXXX!!!" - just because their old and comfortable way to get to a "perfect result" pretty cheap was changed to increase the overall game balance.

This update was a good one, and together with the next updates which will hopefully come soon, it will create a whole new depth for CN gameplay.

[uaciaut]

It's too large a negation. I have 4000+ miles, so at my infra level of 4600 I'd benefit pretty highly from this, i.e. 0.8 better off enviroment wise.

That would give me a pretty good enviroment for someone who has nukes (albeit only 2) and imports uranium, yet I have bothered to swap out for border walls.

Land:infrastructure is already factored into the enviroment formula, we don't need to change how much it's factored in by that much imo.

I too disagree with land alone affecting environment, but the way land/infra affects it now seems too little really.

Instead of making it a one time effect (if land>infra/2 => +1 environment), it should be something like environment bonus = 2*land/per infra imo

[sayton]

I think what we really forget is. If ALL of us had the same resources same statistics it wouldaffect us all the same way. Therefore the ones who are being affected MUCH worse are the ones who didnt grow nicely the way they were supposed to. I took a hit i agree, but i know i took the hit because i didnt grow the way i was supposed to.

Everyone has been hit the same exact way, therefore I think it was a decent update. ALthough most nations make less now, we all make less in the same ratio amount. Therefore i have nothing to complain about.

[King Srqt]

give all nations +20 happiness and +50% pop and most people will hail you because they now make more "virtual cash" and "grow a lot faster" so you could consider this suggestion to make the game more "enjoyable for most players" - would it be a good suggestion? no.

Actually if it made the game more enjoyable yes it would be good. THIS IS A GAME, the purpose of playing a game is to enjoy yourself if a game becomes less enjoyable it becomes worse.

Yes war and politics are only 1 way to play the game and nation building is another but if less people like nation building than it should be focused on less, now I don't know how most people feel but neither do you.

You also still have not addressed my point about the effects on small nations as opposed to older nations and the inherent advantage large nations have by having been able to grow at an accelerated rate and already being at a point were buying infra is not lucrative.

I think what we really forget is. If ALL of us had the same resources same statistics it wouldaffect us all the same way. Therefore the ones who are being affected MUCH worse are the ones who didnt grow nicely the way they were supposed to. I took a hit i agree, but i know i took the hit because i didnt grow the way i was supposed to.

Everyone has been hit the same exact way, therefore I think it was a decent update. ALthough most nations make less now, we all make less in the same ratio amount. Therefore i have nothing to complain about.

what you are saying is that you are taking a hit for not following some cookie cutter strategy and this update is supposed to prevent people from following a cookie cutter strategy.

Edited May 20, 2008 by KingSrqt

[acrux]

I have been PMed by 38 guys so far (ingame, here, other boards) who complained about "how much they are crippled" and after looking at their nations I could tell

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM

that they have just not adapted to the new sitation and are comparing a now "horrible" setup to one that was pretty good before.

ALL OF THEM were silent after I told them to change Gov, Replace some of their improvements with Borderwalls (or to get rid of some military improvements for collection) or change some trades - because they made roughly the same profit like before. And the smaller they are the smaller were their losses.

Right now I have seen dozens of walls-of-texts about how horrible everything is now, how screwed up new nations are now, how unable to catch up everyone is now and so on - and NO ONE was able to link me to ONE SINGLE NATION that was *significantly* hurt (in comparison MORE hurt than ~10-15% profit loss) after it has done the changes in nation setup which are now benefitial.

So, instead of complaining: please post links to nations who are right now "crippled". I have done the math for all sizes of nations and trade setups several times, and whoever made good profits before, will still have good profits now (yes, they lost some, but almost everyone lost some so in comparison nothing will change). Assumptions of nations having lost "30%" or "60%" of their income are just straight lies. Such nations do not exist, never have existed, and never will exist (at least not as result of this update, for this the reduced effect is WAY too weak). You are simply forced to THINK more when planning (chosing your trades, improvements, govsettings, wonders) than before. Correct decisions are rewarded, wrong decisions are penalized.

Heres the issue, the smaller, and more so independent nations knew what made them grow.. inf inf inf, and certain trades to pull the cost down on things. Environment was a moot point really. So when you have A TON of people with that mind set, and trying to do the best, then flip it on them with no warning.. [insert the problem]

IF this would have been communicated that an update was coming to change such things, I dont believe this would be nearly as big of an issue. Again communication on this was horrible.

Where it really hurt me, was I was a day way from getting another improvement.. Yea.. not now.

Little nations took more of a hit, as we dont grow as fast, quickest way we did was inf inf inf. you cut out 500-1000k people from us, and its a good size hit. I had to ship soldiers off because my people were upset that there were to many after the loss of a good bit of people.

Edited May 20, 2008 by acrux

[Robertraccoon]

Still telling people that they should have better trades is like telling a bum on the street to get a job. There are reasons why it may not be working out for them. First there are not enough of the good resources everyone wants, that are available to go around. Then you have people who are unlucky to have the "bad" resources, that still have the rep even though they have been made better.

[Syzygy]

Reference for all the complainers: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_d...ation_ID=46854

- "only" 4,999infra

- importing uranium

- maintaining 20nukes

- "only" having an absolutely non-perfect trade set, not even Iron as must have bill-reducer (it has bad base resources, the Alu+Wine combo does not really fit into 3BG, 5BG, AP whatever)

- way below the reqs for a NEO wonder

- having very expensive military wonders instead of eco wonders (MP, SDI, CIA, 800spies)

- therefore *forced* to maintain 3Sats+3MDs all the time

- VERY low techcount (low infrareduction)

STILL this nation has a 2.08 "perfect" environment.

STILL this nation has 6.4 MILLION tax per day (like before the update!)

STILL this nation has more than 4 MILLION clear profit per day (like before the update!)

55,750k citizens * $116 tax = 6.5M income

4999infra * $380 upkeep = 1.9M infrabill + some nukebills, soldiers, wonders, improvements = ~2.5M bills at all

= 4M clear profit.

That nation is a LOT WORSE OFF than most of yours, and STILL is far far far far far FAR FAR FAR FAR away from being crippled, hurt, screwed or else. Its not bill locked, not bankrupt, not ready to reroll, not unlucrative. With better base resources or a better tradesetup it would perform even BETTER.

Or, is this also a "top tier nation" which has magically benefited? I don't think so.

[King Srqt]

Reference for all the complainers: <a href="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_d...ation_ID=46854" target="_blank">http://www.cybernations.net/nation_d...ation_ID=46854</a>

- "only" 4,999infra

- importing uranium

- maintaining 20nukes

- "only" having an absolutely non-perfect trade set, not even Iron as must have bill-reducer (it has bad base resources, the Alu+Wine combo does not really fit into 3BG, 5BG, AP whatever)

- way below the reqs for a NEO wonder

- having very expensive military wonders instead of eco wonders (MP, SDI, CIA, 800spies)

- therefore *forced* to maintain 3Sats+3MDs all the time

- VERY low techcount (low infrareduction)

STILL this nation has a 2.08 "perfect" environment.

STILL this nation has 6.4 MILLION tax per day (like before the update!)

STILL this nation has more than 4 MILLION clear profit per day (like before the update!)

55,750k citizens * $116 tax = 6.5M income

4999infra * $380 upkeep = 1.9M infrabill + some nukebills, soldiers, wonders, improvements = ~2.5M bills at all

= 4M clear profit.

That nation is a LOT WORSE OFF than most of yours, and STILL is far far far far far FAR FAR FAR FAR away from being crippled, hurt, screwed or else. Its not bill locked, not bankrupt, not ready to reroll, not unlucrative. With better base resources or a better tradesetup it would perform even BETTER.

Or, is this also a "top tier nation" which has magically benefited? I don't think so.

To me that just shows that the pop boosting resources are even better than they used to be seeing as though I have an arguably better trade setup at the same infra and I made less money than he does now before the update.

Edited May 20, 2008 by KingSrqt

[Ski11585]

Syz, you're still ignoring the entire point of this discussion. People derive enjoyment from this game in different ways. You are not the ultimate authority on how people should play.

I find it interesting that you are supporting this change so much, because it adds enjoyment to the game for you, yet attack the idea of more powerful nukes, which might make the game more enjoyable for others.

[Syzygy]

well or maybe it is because he plays for 600days and you only for 200? (he has more wonders)

In addition, your nation does not have cattle nor wheat, this was bad before the update, and it is bad now. Basically everyone whill tell you that Wheat and in most cases also Cattle are *must have* resources for good nation performance. That your base resources make it hard to get these is one thing, it has nothing to do with the update.

However, I agree that AP could use a +1 env bonus further strengthen alternatives to the standard setups.

[Syzygy]

Syz, you're still ignoring the entire point of this discussion. People derive enjoyment from this game in different ways. You are not the ultimate authority on how people should play.

I find it interesting that you are supporting this change so much, because it adds enjoyment to the game for you, yet attack the idea of more powerful nukes, which might make the game more enjoyable for others.

lol really.

First: I am no "authority" at all, but I have the right to argue for my points of view. If the official authority of the game (admin) follows my arguments may be based on the fact that I back them up with facts, while others do not. Arguing over some imaginary "enjoyability" is like asking the population if the government should lower the taxes. Everyone will scream "yes yes please!!!" but the society would go to ruins over it.

Second: I am all in favor of increasing the nuke damage (and that of other weapon systems as well), you will find my support in the threads LJ Scott has linked. In fact, I did even say in THIS THREAD that imho war (especially for highlevel nations) needs to be more destructive.

[King Srqt]

well or maybe it is because he plays for 600days and you only for 200? (he has more wonders)

In addition, your nation does not have cattle nor wheat, this was bad before the update, and it is bad now. Basically everyone whill tell you that Wheat and in most cases also Cattle are *must have* resources for good nation performance. That your base resources make it hard to get these is one thing, it has nothing to do with the update.

However, I agree that AP could use a +1 env bonus further strengthen alternatives to the standard setups.

I had cattle wheat and fish in my last set (which was almost identical to the linked nation) and my current set gave me about a 500k boost in net income per day over my old set before the update (I still don't know what I net after due to my inability to dismiss soldiers at the moment). Although I will admit I did not account for his wonders.

(Also my nation is only 200 days old but I have been playing for close to 600 its irrelevant to this but I still wanted to point it out )

You also still have not addressed my point about the effects on small nations as opposed to older nations and the inherent advantage large nations have by having been able to grow at an accelerated rate and already being at a point were buying infra is not lucrative.

Edited May 20, 2008 by KingSrqt

[Kielmog]

I know you want your ego to be boosted by this approval of one of your ideas, DAC, but this is atrocious. It's not playing smart or improving the game to unbalance the resources to such a large extent. Uranium is no pointless for anyone not in the top 5% and those nations who start with it will get

a. no trading partners leading to

b. slowed economic growth and

c. eventual disinterest or rerolling

The environment has now taken precedent over industrialization. Do you know how crazy that is? I know this game is not realistic, but it strives for a "real-esque" feel. This update has quashed that feeling and not only that, set back the growth of some nations by months and others by days and weeks because there was no warning.

My main problem with this update was not the concept, but the execution. The numbers are flawed, giving preferential treatment to the larger nations, especially those already in the top 5%. If this had been a gradual increase of environmental effect or even the total upgrade with a week's warning, I would not be objecting to it. As it stands, this was a blitz on otherwise established medium-sized nations who had established trade sets, were in wars, or otherwise ambushed. Face it, DAC, this idea was either better left in your head. I have no idea why the admin agreed to a suggestion that came from probably one of the only people in this game that was not going to suffer from it. It's not your fault for being large, it's your fault for not taking into account the needs and feelings of smaller nations when you suggested it.

Edit: Typos annoy me.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Kielmog

[King Srqt]

I know you want your ego to be boosted by this approval of one of your ideas, DAC,

Please stop with this crap. His motivations are to improve the game period. Now lets focus on discussing whether or not this does that.

[Kielmog]

Fine. It does not improve the game. It only widens a gap that was plenty wide enough. Now respond to the rest of it.

Edit:

His motivations are to improve the game period

Lol. Period.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Kielmog