| SuperSoldierRCP | Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 05:56 pm 
Andy,
I'm not asking for this change now because it would effect scoring and (disclosure it would benefit me), but there's an issue with country scoring. It seems any nation for game level purposes set to be ranked as peaceful always sees a negative reduction in points under the "War Protection and War Level Contribution" for a players total score.
I tested 2 worlds on different settings. One at war level 7 saw an increase of 450 points well another at war level 11 saw a reduction of 200 points.
For example I'm going for the number one spot on LU, I'm a war level 11 and I lose a 160 points from my score because of this issue. The person above me at number 1 is only war level 4, but gains 360 point increase because hes set to judge defensively not peacefully. Given the fact we are only separated by 20 points means that when your going for ranking positions this is very frustrating. Regardless of wither an empire is peaceful or not a player should always gain point for war levels. I believe that was your intent long ago and wither I'm set to peaceful or not, I'm playing the war game and vulnerable to other players and I shouldn't be punished because of a scoring error.
Like I said I'm not asking for this change now because it would positively benefit me and I want to gain the number one spot on my merit. However, for next months awards would it be possible for the GM to investigate this issue? |
| Andy | Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - 12:43 pm
I will check ASAP |
| Andy | Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - 04:17 pm
The score has nothing to do with peaceful or not.
There are two war related factors in the score.
1. If the country is war protected, its score is lower.
removing war protection will not cause the score to jump.
It will take a while before it takes any effect so the country must be
without war protection for a long time before this takes effect.
2. A war level >2 will increase the score, independent of the war protection. This too takes time to kick in.
Both factors are in place for a long time and are intended to give bonus points to players who do not use war protection and who have increased their war level and with it, the risk of a PvP wars.
As part of giving incentives to players who do take the risk, we should probably increase the amplitude of these factors.
We should probably check if war protection is on during the entire month and then give a large score bonus. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - 08:29 pm
Thank you Andy.
In that case can I ask why I see such a huge reduction since I dont use war protection. I havent used war protection in a very long time and I've also been war level 11 for a very long time, So I dont see why I should be seeing a penalization on my score.
Also I thought maybe its because the nation is in secure mode, but other secure mode nations with lower war levels see hundreds of points added to their score.
I appreciate you looking into the matter, I just want to make sure that everything is working properly as scoring is a major component of the game. |
| Andy | Thursday, October 26, 2017 - 10:25 am
War protection or secure mode.
Remove the secure mode for a long period and it will change.
What I meant in my last message is, that the country cannot be attacked and we have two ways to secure a country against attacks.
secure mode and (purchased) war protection. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Friday, October 27, 2017 - 02:40 am
Thank you for the clarification.
Well if secure mode influences the scoring system. Why would myself and another player both in secure mode see vastly different scores.
Check LU for example. The top players both are in Secure mode he's War level 4, I'm war level 11 and I don't use War protection yet my main country sees a reduction in points while his see's increase.
Like I said I'm just trying to understand how the scoring system works is all. For me half of the game is trying to build up that nice score and have a good Empire, so I'm curious just in how the scoring works |
| Sheepman RGB | Friday, October 27, 2017 - 03:17 pm
Iv actually noticed that a long time ago, back in 2015. Always though of it as more of an incentive for war levels, as to me was easier to just level up war levels and maintain defensive index vs the peaceful requirements. Though i believe there should be no penalty for the playing style. |
| Andy | Saturday, October 28, 2017 - 10:22 am
We think that players who dare removing their protection should win more score points while those who keep their protection up (secure mode or otherwise) should see lower scores.
If you remove your war protections, you need a larger army and you pay for building it and you pay monthly maintenance.
The higher the war level, the larger the difference between war protections on or off.
When you switch from one to another, it can take quite some time to take full effect.
This is to prevent any effect of switching on the last day of the month.
We are all talking about PvP wars and about taking more risk and encouraging players to remove their artificial security measures.
This is a major test of this.
remove it and your score can go up by hundreds of points.
We will add more incentives for PvP wars, as we promised before. |
| Sheepman RGB | Saturday, October 28, 2017 - 02:10 pm
*Bit lengthy, ill sum it up best i can*
Not bad concept, but as to type, comes in to weigh in incentive that only is temporary lure as to type, really if someone maintains a defense and levels up to meet game level needs it works pretty swell, however like a long long timer like Super, it kind of is a back fire as while the target is to ensure players who end up using peaceful may just do that and never level up there war level and risking any of there assets those pose, and receive all the benfits of game leveling while protected.
To recap, if a new player starts, and goes for say peaceful 10, understandable that if they have say countries that would normally be put at risk to level up, though if they play the cards right they dont need to level past 2 to obtain those countries. So ofcourse if someone wants level 10 in defense(full game) they would need (unless defesive index which is mostly to high for a maintaining level maybe big dog such as Aries could handle, in which one might just get that vs the war levels and could just sit war level 0, with like 2000 defensive index) war level 6 which prones there empire other then the 1 countrie in secured mode possibly. So concluding in a new perspective yes someone can just get game level 10 and not have to risk a thing vs a player reaching 10 in full game, have countries that will be prone to attack, despite the index/population requirements being lower in full game still puts them at risk.
So if someone chooses peaceful, there is a good chance they may never do anything war related unless to a minimal scale to obtain countrys and never leave protection. Though if they choose full game, they will level up the war level risking there assets, and also have to maintain a higher risked defense likely. So it does put forth some valid ability to make a scare change, but let me explain long term situation.
Though my point is, Super is a higher war level already from what i have seen, though he uses his empire on peaceful based on how he has his stats/indexs set up. For a player like Him, its not a road he has to take for a time, but rather an option of what game level method he wants to use(based on his ability as a player). In this case, it is peaceful. While the incentive catoirs to the need of saying; a player who is peaceful yet DOES NOT partake in risking avabile assets based on war level, will recieve penalty for not risking there assets, but rather more based on a generic state of not only changing index variables, but also simple asking "Do you risk you assets in war? Yes or No" in which yes there is no penalty and is preffered option for higher levels, vs no, that punishs you for not risking the assets. Not bad overall as someone who risks there stuff shouldent be treated the same as someone who can type there fingers to 5 200m pop countrys and not have to worrie about a single thing ever.
Though however, what if said player, Super, has already taken the incentives that the game states offer (full game encourage war leveling, defense building) while meeting needs of peaceful gameplay, yet is still punished for the simple fact that the games state of full or peaceful determines wheather or not you risk your assets, in which regardless of anything the assets are still risked if above war level 3 and anything outsides of secured mode. Thats not essentailly a fair concept, as it conclusivly proves as a new time incentive to yank players out of protection zone into a war zone, only to be punished possibly for the long term not by war, but also the own game thats trying to push it!!!!! As to respond that peacful dident put all countrys in protection, did it? If not, then if one such as Super has a war level over 3, he should not be punished at all for having countrys that infact may be more at risk then projected countrys at full game with minimal/some defense vs peacful in which a war level player may not have heavy defense to support the index needs of the game level.
******************************************************************************
MAIN: Do not make a penalty for secured mode!!!!! There is a reason why you guys made fearless blue, that is apart of this concept and purpose that the game state cannot determine this penatly you guys are working with, such as punishing someone on fearless blue for using peaceful gamemode with a war level higher then 3!! I agree this is a good helpful concept, though dont make it biased and simple switch projected as its already conceptually broken. How broken? Super explained himself good, and see you tell why its purpose exists yes good, but really understand as (sometimes points dont get across easy) for somebody who already risks/utilized incentives offered by full game, why would they need to be punished for. Simply the problem isent the game state peaceful, but rather the war level protection that prohibits them, as just because one requires less active defense so to say but higher indexs still poses same risks, which penalized is a no goodie.
=Suggestion/idea: Not based on peaceful or full game states but war levels; for people who are 0,1,2 need penalty to scores always as these are the "fake" protections, also stronghold protections that can never be broken. While with fearless blue, and other war levels, the penalty should be none although at higher war levels, such as 6+ should give a score increase opposed to penalty. say player wants to ever level using other game state, has to risk everything just as much with less defense likely and actually more to risk since peaceful game state concludes you need more country + more population very likely less defense, A BIGGER RISK when you have higher war levels. Why punish them for this?=
point is more to risk, though if they are only war levels 3+. I believe its balanced in all rights, more, heavier populated, countrys with better indexs concluding to having a lighter defense vs fewer , lighter population, country maintaing a higher defense index with likely lower indexs. This is why i believe the key is not basing a score award on game states but rather war levels directly themselves. Note that as typed, secured mode should NOT by anymeans be penatly, simple enough to type. Fearless Blue exists for a reason, players should have all the right to have 1 happy place on 4 worlds they shouldent have to throw away for risk of a award they can only get every few months, at the least..
Consider reading some atleast  not really bad but kind of ranty but trying to hit a core point with the score, as to type. |
| Andy | Friday, November 3, 2017 - 10:56 pm
Supersoldier is in war level 11.
In the process he won many many gold coins and looted many countries for a lot of cash.
peaceful indeed.
and then you become peaceful, your cost of defense is very low and you can become much more profitable.
so you have an advantage of low cost of defense.
and your score can become very high. and you have won huge war profits in gold coins and cash.
someone who does take more risk, has a high cost of defense, low profitability and a lower score.
unfair.
This is why the high war level, combined with protection should reduce your score.
You can easily increase your score. Just remove the protection. |
