Jump to content

Tech cap! (Which will help balance the new update)


Ejayrazz
 Share

Get rid of the tech cap which is at 300?  

125 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Opinion?

Get rid of it. Period.

It is at 300, it is ridiculous.

This may require a new formula, as Diskord stated.

Reference to his post:

You do realize the formula is:

Normal Number of Kills * (Technology Purchased * 10%)

that means that it caps out at normal kill rate * 30.

Without this cap I would have a kill rate of 270.

Thats 9 times what I currently have. Since I can anarchy someone with full military in 3-4 attacks, this turns EVERY battle in the upper ranges to insta-anarchy.... whats the point of that?

We need a new formula BEFORE we remove the cap, I am all for removing the cap, but re-write the formula FIRST.

Something like Kills * ((Attackers Technology-Defenders Technology) * 10%). Something like that... a simple change but it doesn't completely break combat at the high NS levels.

What you are proposing would completely break the warfare system, and no one wants that.

I honestly just want this capped removed.

Edited by Ejayrazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize the formula is:

Normal Number of Kills * (Technology Purchased * 10%)

that means that it caps out at normal kill rate * 30.

Without this cap I would have a kill rate of 270.

Thats 9 times what I currently have. Since I can anarchy someone with full military in 3-4 attacks, this turns EVERY battle in the upper ranges to insta-anarchy.... whats the point of that?

We need a new formula BEFORE we remove the cap, I am all for removing the cap, but re-write the formula FIRST.

Something like Kills * ((Attackers Technology-Defenders Technology) * 10%). Something like that... a simple change but it doesn't completely break combat at the high NS levels.

What you are proposing would completely break the warfare system, and no one wants that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because my alliance mate(s) had/have a different opinion, does not mean I must follow it. If you observe, two others are in the same boat as me here, Jmm is on the Conclave. Do not bring my alliance into this please, as it is irrelevant at this point.

Lets let CN decide mate. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize the formula is:

Normal Number of Kills * (Technology Purchased * 10%)

that means that it caps out at normal kill rate * 30.

Without this cap I would have a kill rate of 270.

Thats 9 times what I currently have. Since I can anarchy someone with full military in 3-4 attacks, this turns EVERY battle in the upper ranges to insta-anarchy.... whats the point of that?

We need a new formula BEFORE we remove the cap, I am all for removing the cap, but re-write the formula FIRST.

Something like Kills * ((Attackers Technology-Defenders Technology) * 10%). Something like that... a simple change but it doesn't completely break combat at the high NS levels.

What you are proposing would completely break the warfare system, and no one wants that.

What are you talking about? Insta anarchy is FUN!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize the formula is:

Normal Number of Kills * (Technology Purchased * 10%)

that means that it caps out at normal kill rate * 30.

Without this cap I would have a kill rate of 270.

Thats 9 times what I currently have. Since I can anarchy someone with full military in 3-4 attacks, this turns EVERY battle in the upper ranges to insta-anarchy.... whats the point of that?

We need a new formula BEFORE we remove the cap, I am all for removing the cap, but re-write the formula FIRST.

Something like Kills * ((Attackers Technology-Defenders Technology) * 10%). Something like that... a simple change but it doesn't completely break combat at the high NS levels.

What you are proposing would completely break the warfare system, and no one wants that.

Correct, there are other options but yes the fomular need to be tweaked before. Still i´m up for removing the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Diskord's idea. However, this would have a much greater effect than the changes in how much tech affects NS.

The changes that were made today should actually not make much real world difference. Tech is really almost just as useful as it was before because of the 300-cap (ie, in battle it didn't do anything over 300 anyway).

Changing the cap would actually have a far more wide ranging effect. There are plenty of nations who have never bothered to get much tech (because they were not interested in the NS rank per se, and didn't therefore see the point of going much over 300). Those would be in a bad position for many months, because it takes a long time to build up a large amount of tech.

I'm still in favor of the proposal, but perhaps it would be fair to phase it in over some time (ie, do something like Diskord proposed, but with limits that are raised every month).

edit - typos

Edited by TheBFG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone point me in the direction of where it is stated there is actually a cap on military effectiveness? The only place I have seen battle effectiveness addressed is here

Having a higher technology level allows you to equip your soldiers with better weapons and get more kills. The effect works for both attacking and defending nations. Here's the current equation: Normal Number of Kills * (Technology Purchased * 10%). This means that if you have a technology level of 5 and in a regular battle you would normally get 100 kills you would actually get 50 more kills as a result of your technology level. (100*(5*.10) = 50)

I do not see a suggested limit, however posters in this thread are more knowledgeable about these things than I am.

Edited by kerschbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize the formula is:

Normal Number of Kills * (Technology Purchased * 10%)

that means that it caps out at normal kill rate * 30.

Without this cap I would have a kill rate of 270.

Thats 9 times what I currently have. Since I can anarchy someone with full military in 3-4 attacks, this turns EVERY battle in the upper ranges to insta-anarchy.... whats the point of that?

We need a new formula BEFORE we remove the cap, I am all for removing the cap, but re-write the formula FIRST.

Something like Kills * ((Attackers Technology-Defenders Technology) * 10%). Something like that... a simple change but it doesn't completely break combat at the high NS levels.

Why not just Kills*(Attacking tech/Defending tech)?

Make it a straight ratio. Easy to calculate, it scales to all tech levels, and it makes practical sense in character. If someone has ten times the tech of their opponent frankly they deserve ten times the kills. It's tanks vs. pitchforks. If on the other hand they have 100 tech more then their opponent, but their tech level is like 3000 and their opponent is at 2900, then a massive kill advantage is a bit much considering it's only a disparity in tech levels of like 3%.

Edited by Reformentia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-----

I think I like Reformentia's suggestion, though I haven't completely examined any potential downsides for a formula of this nature. I agree that tech should be scaled to actually make it a realistic measure (IE tanks vs. pitchforks) and that there should be no cap to the value that tech provides because this is would not occur in real-life; tech scales there too. That same reality counters any discussion of "insta-Anarchy" as well, though. Let's face it...if for some reason the United States decided to unleash the entire might of it's military against the nation of Tuvalu, I'm gonna say there's a pretty good chance Tuvalu will be in Anarchy within minutes. Likewise Tuvalu may find itself at one-tenth its Infrastructure after just a few minutes. That's real life--why shouldn't it be CN life as well? So what does Tuvalu do to keep that from happening? They join an Alliance, just like they do in CN, and hope that protects them from attack by stronger nations until they can grow strong enough on their own.

Now in game terms, this isn't entirely practical and the Admins have to guard against anything that would chase new players away before they can get something going--but we (they) still need to do as much as they can within reason to maintain reality in this reality-based game. Stronger nations are stronger. Technology is more readily available to stronger nations. Technology makes stronger nations even stronger than they already are. This is reality.

So my vote, then, is to tweak (if not entirely rework) the formula in such a way that tech maintains real value throughout the entire range of availability (which means no cap of any kind), and then allow NS to reflect this new real figure. This solves everyone's problems.

Well, except those who have to code the whole thing, of course.

-----

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...