Ejayrazz Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 (edited) 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 November 2, 2007 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternschanze Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Needed badly, even before this new... "improved change to gameplay". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir BluJohn Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Verily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Maybe it's just me, but this is more then a little self-serving, coming from a Gramlin. It wouldn't exactly be an awful change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke William I Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 It will make tech do something. The only thing tech pass 300 was good for before was to make fake NS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diskord Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Diskord, check op's post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawnNL Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Voted yes. No to the tech cap :jihad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diskord Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 (edited) Edit: with updated op, vote yes. Edited November 2, 2007 by diskord Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelrat Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Yeah, any logical formula at this point, we just need the cap removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idriveavw Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 agreed. remove the cap. and this is coming from a non-tech heavy Grämlin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Will a moderator please move this to gameplay suggestions. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaVolt Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 (edited) I posted the same in the suggestions forum. Edited November 2, 2007 by MegaVolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBFG Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 (edited) 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 November 2, 2007 by TheBFG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDave Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Removing the tech cap will see tech heavy nations that have been ZI'd absolutely rip through smaller nations. New formula, then look at the tech cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enrique Barrentos Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 The cap needs to be removed AND the formula needs to be reworked as Diskord suggests. Also, the 200%/50% rule needs to be reevaluated as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 (edited) 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 November 2, 2007 by kerschbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 All voters may wish to go to Mega's thread, who is a alliance mate of mine. I was afk today, so he made a new topic which grasped the admin's attention. I am glad the idea from this has been acknowledged. Moderation: Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reformentia Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 (edited) 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 November 2, 2007 by Reformentia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOAIS Posted November 4, 2007 Report Share Posted November 4, 2007 ----- 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. ----- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.