Verified:

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 15th 2019, 20:22:26

The policy is there to discourage targeted forced landtrading so in 90% of the cases we dont enforce it. But when it comes to people that have a history with us its almost guaranteed.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 15th 2019, 18:26:06

It will be pretty normal since the DR went off before the mid-lategame. NWs have been low for a few months like 30-40 winning so I think it should be the same now. Maybe techers got hurt a little bit but theres no reason a commie can't get 40m NW now since all their grabbing would have been done after the bot DR went away. :)

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 15th 2019, 17:32:34

That policy was implemented after 3 sets of war started by a massive onslaught of topfeeds that was continuing also into that 4th set.

YOU are the one trying to dictate how others should play the game. You don't recognice this?

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 15th 2019, 16:05:55

Funnily enough the opposition to doing away with suicides with Clan-GDI was that it would change the game for the worse for many players that had nothing to do with it. Yet that would have been limited to 1a. Now instead we have a situation where suiciders are nerfed a little but concepts like NW matching retals/grabs, government bonuses, PS bonuses and MStrat are rendered inert in many situations across ALL SERVERS.

Very complicated solutions to very simple problems is the way it seems. :/

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 15th 2019, 15:55:48

Originally posted by Gerdler:
I did tell Pang that this would lower the effectiveness of MStrat and the tyr/dict govts in some situations but Pang choose to not listen to me and implement it his way regardless:

Originally posted by Gerdler:

I know I have written heaps about this before but my suggestion IMO still makes more sense and it is that instead of using 10% land as the max(which reduces the effectiveness of tyr govt, NW matching and MStrat for no reason) it should be that if the target acreage is larger than your own, you grab what you would have grabbed if the country was exactly your acreage (or 80% your acreage or whatever)
This would make a smaller dent against suiciders on alliance servers, but it makes sense to not negate these key concepts (MStrat, govt, NW matching). And I dont think this is enough by itself regardless assuming clan-GDI is going to look like the proposal currently is.

Originally posted by Gerdler:
if its just a hard limit to your grabbing returns then DR will still apply normally for all hits.

Originally posted by Gerdler:

Attack_Constant*MStrat*Govt_Mod*NW_Mod*Min(Targets_Resource,Attackers_Resource)


Imo something like this should be done rather than a 10% cap.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 15th 2019, 15:51:25

It really kills the notion that ingame drama creates good activity doesn't it?

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 14th 2019, 19:18:10

Well unless they make a really clever solution there it will be another decade or two of guerilla war and terrorism there. You might not like ISIS or al-queda terrorists and perhaps brexit will reduce the frequency of those attacks but you have something very close to you that can cause the same kind of bloodshed and destruction unless its dealt with with very intelligently. And Boris Johnson doesn't strike me as someone who will take the time to take in all aspects of a situation before making a decision. He will rush brexit, just as he has promised, lol.

Either way, your problem, not mine.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 14th 2019, 17:54:55

Apart from the british breakfast, which everyone in the world envies, your food is already trash tho. :P

Why do you care so much about food standards and medicine prices? Those things can go either way, what you should be worried about is how to solve the north ireland- ireland border and how the scottish will react. That and the cost in jobs etc.

Either way when your choice is J Corbyn or B Johnson you are in a really fluffty spot no matter what.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 14th 2019, 0:11:26

ahh but you are forgetting that we are not balancing attributes now. We are balancing govts, so its pretty simple really if one govt overperform more than you want in certain aspects or games you scale back a positive attribute or change something else in the game to get closer to balance. It doesnt even have to be the strongest attribute. Tyranny -10% expenses doesnt matter to a netting tyr techer-> demo techer in 1a, but removing it would hurt warring tyrannies

So certain attributes like the 1 turn attack, the 0% commissions and the +50% oil production are certainly overpowered attributes. I mean... they are insane in themselves. But each govt have at least one overpowered attribute to balance each others.

I would start by tinkering with the govts and certain formulas to make it less obvious what govts are best for war-wargaining- netting alike. It wouldnt be hard to make a case for changes right now based on what we know if we want to make the range of viable options broader and/or more balanced.
You mention the tyranny govt gains bonus as a potential thing to change. But why not the -10% expenses? It doesn't matter to a netting tyr techer-> demo techer in 1a, FFA or express (probably the only servers such a strat is viable for top ranks), but removing it would hurt warring tyrannies across the board. Maybe not enough to make people switch govt initially, but people will notice that carrying enough military and spies to break the dicts become harder after this.
So I would say that in more situation with such a change will dict be the primary war govt.
The -10% expenses may seem like the weakest positive attribute of the tyranny govt for some but its very noticable for others.

When was the last time that the strongest country the enemy had was a republic? Rep casher used to be beast in war because of its insane income but certain changes to spies, to other govts, the addition of Bioterror op etc make rep casher pretty much a joke in war now. So you are left with dicts and tyrannies of serveral different strats, with the occasional commie indy and fascist oiler or farmer/oiler as the only other strats that are not either niche or troll (I get that demo can be powerful on occasion but its a niche pick for sure, and it wont be your bread and butter ever). Thats it.
If pang wants to change this he doesnt need to remove governments and let us pick attributes to balance it, he can just straight up change some stuff in an intelligent way, might not get it just right the first time around but certainly should be perfectly doable to move the needle wherever he wants it over time.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 13th 2019, 16:17:26

ZZ had 4 t10s too...

Lightbringer, Relax, Rookie and I. :)

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 13th 2019, 12:15:06

While you have many good points I think you might be forgetting that its possible also to balance governments but for that to happen devs have to actively take in feedback(not from players because most have no clue) from stats and making balance changes.

Edited By: Gerdler on Dec 13th 2019, 16:07:40

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 12th 2019, 19:18:20

You were hit very hard tho. En4cer and ZPS are the only ones at lower NW that would have been able to challenge you if everyone was unsuicided, and you would have beaten both Monsters.

What it did tho is make a lot of people stop trying. The damage from the hits themselves is easier to quantify. PS was heading for 1-3 t10s if unsuicided, but they stopped trying after they got hit. Several lafers did the same.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 12th 2019, 16:41:44

Permanent Bonuses Owned Effect
Building Costs -1.3% -1.3%

I have already committed to netting this set as you can see, so it will have to be next set if I should join.

I think its important to make up your mind about the rules before the set instead of halfway into the set.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 12th 2019, 0:35:28

I think the main issue is running warchats with only 12 people you can realistically do 2 kill runs a day only as long as the enemy doesnt wall, otherwise it will be 1 a day. And everyone will wall in such an event. So theres no point changing targets as its just another waller that isnt already low pop. Finding 12 people who can always do the same warchat time is harder than the war itself.

I do not share Sovs concern over trusting others to lead, however, as I have been in many wars together with people I think are trash as human beings and who no doubt regard me the same way but it has almost always worked since people generally dont want to lead so they will follow anyone as long as they dont have to lead themselves, and that goes for me too. :P

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 12th 2019, 0:19:52

He is not saying that LaF has a tag he is saying that sol laf stones sof imag monsters put up 12 of their best and together face Elders/merc...

Thats why I say I'm not needed. Not only will they beat Elders pretty easily without me there will also be a bunch of people who dont get along with me in that all-star team.

Or are you saying that the main benefit of this challenge is that I dont get to netgain?

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 19:30:46

Yes Rank #3 also was a rep casher.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 18:23:30

Thats fair, I guess. :P

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 17:57:06

Yes they do. I think better than in alliance honestly. but it depends on prices. Since you are allowed to run several countries there I would advise you to split your countries between different strategies so that you are not completely maimed by a market that is unfavorable for all your countries at once.

something like 1 farmer, 1 oiler, 1 casher and 1 techer would be a great string that can work well no matter the market.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 15:37:03

I already did:

SS Dec 11, 13:24 5 (#74) 3 (#72) 200 A
SS Dec 11, 13:26 5 (#74) 4 (#73) 278 A



74 was 30k acres(252cs rest farms) 32m NW on each hit. but with 139.6% MStrat on second hit. Targets were both 180cs 9820 farms and 6.8m NW.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 13:36:23

This also means that on some attacks your SS will gain as much as your PS. Now I don't think that is good but its what we got.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 13:31:52

This is not correct. Military strategy works the same way as it used to. The difference is that Pang put in a flat cap to gains that MStrat cant budge, but that is only in effect for a certain subset of close NW, landthin to landfat attacks.

So for 95% of all grabs MStrat still has the same effect.

I did tell Pang that this would lower the effectiveness of MStrat and the tyr/dict govts in some situations but Pang choose to not listen to me and implement it his way regardless:

Originally posted by Gerdler:

I know I have written heaps about this before but my suggestion IMO still makes more sense and it is that instead of using 10% land as the max(which reduces the effectiveness of tyr govt, NW matching and MStrat for no reason) it should be that if the target acreage is larger than your own, you grab what you would have grabbed if the country was exactly your acreage (or 80% your acreage or whatever)
This would make a smaller dent against suiciders on alliance servers, but it makes sense to not negate these key concepts (MStrat, govt, NW matching). And I dont think this is enough by itself regardless assuming clan-GDI is going to look like the proposal currently is.

Originally posted by Gerdler:
if its just a hard limit to your grabbing returns then DR will still apply normally for all hits.

Originally posted by Gerdler:

Attack_Constant*MStrat*Govt_Mod*NW_Mod*Min(Targets_Resource,Attackers_Resource)


Imo something like this should be done rather than a 10% cap.

Edited By: Gerdler on Dec 11th 2019, 14:03:23

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 13:06:35

I talked to Pang about the reason why he doesnt disclose all game formulas and it is intentional from what I can tell. I have the full e2025 PCI growth formula (at least I think it is correct, no way to test it now) and the EE PCI growth formula works very similarily.

The formulas are NOT exactly the same tho, probably just a few constants have been changed from what I can tell.

How to avoid PCI death should be up to every player and/or tag to learn either by testing, math and/or experience. This is exciting stuff and it is part of what drives me to play this game! :)

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 12:33:30

^^told ya! :)

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 12:11:35

Yeah I been calling for a decrease in the effectiveness of the oil destock for 2 years now. Join me, bro.

Until such a time that it happens I will just have to play it. Tho I will point out that my highest finish ever on this server was with a demo mbr oil destock and I was a techer all set.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 1:13:58

I like that because then I don't need to participate. :)

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 0:44:16

So I take it you still don't acknowledge that there is a PCI change formula, then?

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 0:12:17

That is also incorrect if you want to add bios into the discussion but it doesnt matter for the present discussion. You understand now that you have a "PCI change formula" that governs how your PCI changes, and that the PCI formula is just the equilibrium PCI?

I think I have said that 8-10 times in this thread.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 0:05:39

how would that look like?

We would just put up 12 non-elders against elders?

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 11th 2019, 0:04:09

Im 4th again not 3rd... I lost 800k NW there at the end. But it doesnt matter I like getting 4th after losing 300cs, 45k buildings and 25k acres. :)

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 10th 2019, 23:17:28

Well I would suggest random draw... but the point is that we have 2 wars and only one tag wins both wars so we then know who is the winner. Also no one wants to be last so the losers of the first war will be on different teams fighting each others

So it can be
Elders vs SoF
LaF vs SOL

or
LaF vs Elders
SOL vs SoF

or
LaF vs SoF
Elders vs SOL

Those are the 3 possible draws.

and then the second round would depend on the outcomes of the first round.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 10th 2019, 20:36:36

I dont think it should be next set since its holiday season.

That said I think it should work like this:

If 4 tags compete it should be 2 wars.

For instance something like this
Round 1:
war1: LaF vs Elders
war2: SOL vs SoF

Round 2:
Winner of war1 + loser of war2 vs winner of war2 + loser of war1.

That way you get a clear winner out of 4 tags, and theres no tactical play or collusion since you will still war your opponent in round 1 also in war 2.

A clear definition of winning parameters need to be set for war 1, so that it can end in something like 1 week (long before tagkills). A short recess for growing back and stocking up turns would have to occur between the wars.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 10th 2019, 16:15:07

No im not talking about the PCI formula. But like with population you have a "population formula" but you also have a "population growth formula" and it is the same thing with PCI.

The population growth formula is quite simple so I can post it:

Population Growth =Trunc(If(MaxPop>CurrentPop,PopG,PopL),0)
PopG =Min(Trunc(Round((MaxPop-CurrentPop),0)/3,0),Max(40,Round(0.03*(1-Taxrate)*CurrentPop),0))
PopL =Min(Round((0.05+0.15*Taxrate)*CurrentPop,0),Trunc(Round((CurrentPop-MaxPop),0)/3,0))

On top of that you have the formula for maxpop which is the analogue of what we have posted in this thread for the PCI formula:
Maximum Population = (1-0.95*Taxrate)*(24*Res+12*Land)*ResTech*GvtPOP


So you see that there are two different formulas that are used depending on tax rate, population and max population, for how much your population grows. For instance if your pop is really low you get 40 as minimum pop growth.

It is the same with PCI growth except that formula is more complex and is actually 3 different formulas that are used in various situations. ONE of those formulas can cause it to take on negative values even when the actual PCI is below the max PCI. Ergo your PCI keeps dropping to 0 if it goes on long enough, and you die.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 10th 2019, 15:25:25

Originally posted by Celphi:
Also keep in mind, in every programming language, there's always precision errors with floats. They're well known in IEEE.

1.1 - 1.3 === ~0.19999999999999996

Its not a programming error or a rounding error that makes you lose PCI when walling.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 10th 2019, 15:22:39

Originally posted by Celphi:
Only time PCI should drop below 0 is when you're consecutively out of food or money.

Like I said this is not correct at all.
Originally posted by Celphi:

The only time it should reach 0 is because programming rounding. ie. 0.004999

The new formula is round(PCI,2) < 0.0

round(0.0049, 2) === 0 (in PHP) (dead)
round(0.005, 2) === 0.01 (in PHP) (alive)

The fact he was Tyranny and walled an insane # of attacks is likely why he died.
Esp since the PCI formula has GvtPCIBonus in it:
22.5 * (1 - Taxrate) * (1 + ((Networth/Land)/18000)) * (1 + (2 * (Ent/Land))) * BusTech * GvtPCIBonus

This is the PCI formula. It never gets you a number below 5.7 PCI or so, it is always positive.

What you need is the PCI change formula.

Edit: Actually, you can get to 5.08 PCI "the normal" way. I forgot tyranny has lower PCI than fascism.

Edited By: Gerdler on Dec 10th 2019, 15:37:37
See Original Post

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 10th 2019, 15:19:34

I'm talking about PCI dropping whenever you are low pop, despite the equilibrium PCI being higher than actual PCI. It has always been that way.

You will notice that every time you wall by taking turns on low pop your PCI crashes, yet if you use the PCI formula to calculate what your PCI should be it is basically unchanged by anything that the kill run affected (unless you are a casher getting BRed/chemed). In fact the PCI formula with a fascist at 70% tax rate and 100% bus tech, no enterprise zones you should still have around 5.7-6 PCI. So theres no way to get below 5.5 PCI without food/cash shortages or low population.

Afaik this has always been the case, maybe the breakpoints have changed at one point or another.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 10th 2019, 10:32:57

Originally posted by ironxxx:

Everything is a conspiracy especially negative growth formulas.

Negative PCI growth has always been around tho.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 10th 2019, 0:32:38

Well as I said the mechanism is well known.

But without knowing how Azn walled I can't say if the actual numbers are the same as before. I have walled with low pop for a long time as well without this happening and while I did sometimes pay attention to my PCI going very low I cant say I did anything to keep it from going to 0, but my focus was 100.0% on keeping my population above 0 and it was enough for keeping PCI above 0 all those times as well. Don't know why that was not the case for Azn.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 9th 2019, 23:51:57

He died because the PCI growth formula gives negative PCI changes when you are low pop. This negative PCI change happens to every country that ever took turns while walling at low pop.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 9th 2019, 23:27:29

Im not guessing, if you suggest Im guessing you are ignoring what I said. Im saying that the PCI change formula has always been able to produce negative change even when equilibrium PCI is above the current PCI. It has always been that way, since like 1999 at least. Its not a bug, its a feature that they have reverse engineered from E2025 and intentionally implemented here.

Edited By: Gerdler on Dec 9th 2019, 23:30:39

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 9th 2019, 23:17:13

But he did it with food and cash shortages tho, right? Azn had neither.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 9th 2019, 22:16:53

Originally posted by Requiem:
If the formula shouldn’t allow 0 then maybe it was some kind of rounding error on the programming side is my guess.

Maybe pang and or Qz needs to do a unit test on that formula in game.

Dude read what I wrote... It has nothing to do with the PCI formula.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 9th 2019, 21:28:29

It wont help.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 9th 2019, 21:17:04

I dont think anyone have the current one for EE and it was from what I understand the very last formula to be completely reverse engineered from e2025 as it was the most compex one in the game.
It was reverse engineered in order to replicate the game so Im sure its very similar and I have it(the old one) somewhere on my toasters hard drive. It is not posted on LaF formula collection.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 9th 2019, 21:02:52

No its like I said. The PCI growth formula gives negative numbers when you have low pop, regardless of the equilibrium.

The PCI growth formula is very complicated compared to the equilibrium PCI formula that we have posted in this thread.

Gerdler

Member

2475

Dec 9th 2019, 20:52:38

Well that was never the reason for PCI death. The PCI growth formula gives negative PCI changes even when the equilibrium PCI is way higher than current PCI. Low pop triggers that but I have no idea how low the pop needs to be, how it rounds or how fast its supposed to drop.

All I know is that PCI deaths used to be more common than they are now and I was under the impression that some change had been implemented to stop PCI deaths in the last couple of years.