EE PatronAug 21st 2019, 19:22:54
The most viable of these are as follows Getafix. Punch them into a calculator:
Spy Expenses = 1/(1 + Networth/200000000)
Current formula = (1 + Networth/200000000)
This would essentially lower the expenses of spies as you get more. The price at low volume will be about the same, but as you get a pile of spies, rather than having the cost of them basically double every 5m, they will be reduced by 1/3. This doesn't affect netters as they will still be the most expensive unit and likely not taken. When you run around 30 spal geta, we're talking about a reduction of perhaps $1m per turn in expenses. Its not nearly enough to make them a commodity for netters.
Spy Power: spies*acres^(-1/2)
Current formula: spies/acres
As you can see from sin's grid, it just allows a person with 50k acres to be on a level playing field expense per acre with a person with 5k acres. Currently its easier to run high spal on low acres. Balancing the ability to run high spal on high acres will make people go for big countries rather than 5k uber restarts, but will not affect netters as its unlikely they will have 100+ spal ever anyways. And as has been pointed out, this is more close to Mehul's e2025 formula than what we have now.
A reduction of CD from 4% to 3% of troops
20 CDs & 7 demos current break: 32%
20 CDs & 7 demos suggested formula break: 38%
Fighting over a 6% reduction in break seems silly to me, but I'll bite. There isn't really a good reason for CD to be more powerful than any other ops. While its subtle, that 600k troops for every ten million could make a pretty big difference in outgrowing your enemies, but again does not make it easy for netters to have them, nor does it make them safer in the least bit.
It seriously annoys me that the opposition to these are plainly hypotheticals based on old terminology and who is in LaF. I've yet to hear one reason why these are bad, aside from people saying "it will be easy for laf" and not providing a single instance of how it benefits them whatsoever. Use the fluffing formulas to describe how the formulas should be changed or unchanged. Not some old descriptions of war and your opinion of LaF. Imo its unfortunate Gerdler is supporting the ideas of the more personally invested, intelligent war players. Because if he'd just say sof is right they'd probably actually test the fluff and give them a chance.
Spy Expenses = 1/(1 + Networth/200000000)
Current formula = (1 + Networth/200000000)
This would essentially lower the expenses of spies as you get more. The price at low volume will be about the same, but as you get a pile of spies, rather than having the cost of them basically double every 5m, they will be reduced by 1/3. This doesn't affect netters as they will still be the most expensive unit and likely not taken. When you run around 30 spal geta, we're talking about a reduction of perhaps $1m per turn in expenses. Its not nearly enough to make them a commodity for netters.
Spy Power: spies*acres^(-1/2)
Current formula: spies/acres
As you can see from sin's grid, it just allows a person with 50k acres to be on a level playing field expense per acre with a person with 5k acres. Currently its easier to run high spal on low acres. Balancing the ability to run high spal on high acres will make people go for big countries rather than 5k uber restarts, but will not affect netters as its unlikely they will have 100+ spal ever anyways. And as has been pointed out, this is more close to Mehul's e2025 formula than what we have now.
A reduction of CD from 4% to 3% of troops
20 CDs & 7 demos current break: 32%
20 CDs & 7 demos suggested formula break: 38%
Fighting over a 6% reduction in break seems silly to me, but I'll bite. There isn't really a good reason for CD to be more powerful than any other ops. While its subtle, that 600k troops for every ten million could make a pretty big difference in outgrowing your enemies, but again does not make it easy for netters to have them, nor does it make them safer in the least bit.
It seriously annoys me that the opposition to these are plainly hypotheticals based on old terminology and who is in LaF. I've yet to hear one reason why these are bad, aside from people saying "it will be easy for laf" and not providing a single instance of how it benefits them whatsoever. Use the fluffing formulas to describe how the formulas should be changed or unchanged. Not some old descriptions of war and your opinion of LaF. Imo its unfortunate Gerdler is supporting the ideas of the more personally invested, intelligent war players. Because if he'd just say sof is right they'd probably actually test the fluff and give them a chance.